DHANDAPANI Vs. BOMMAYA RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both. A recapitulation and resume of the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of these Civil Revision Petitions would run thus: The revision petitioner, being the plaintiff, filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.219 of 1996 on the file of the Sub Court, Karur, seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioner, placing reliance on the grounds of revision, would put forth and set forth his arguments which could succinctly and precisely be set out thus: The Will itself is an unregistered one and in the reply notice, the plaintiff raised a plea that the said Will is a fabricated, concocted and created one. For better adjudication, taking the assistance of an handwriting expert for verifying the genuineness of the alleged testator's signature is a must, but the Lower Court simply relied on the time factor and dismissed it warranting interference in revision.

(3.) THE point for consideration is as to whether the Lower Court was justified in dismissing both the applications only based on the time factor.