CHINNAPPAN Vs. CHINNAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioners are the defendants in O.S. No. 1872 of 1996 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Salem. The revision is filed aggrieved against the order dated 19.7.2004 and made in I.A. No. 889 of 2004, which was filed to send the document marked as Ex.X-1 dated 26.12.1995, in favour of P.W.2 Ponnusamy by C.K. Dhanapal, Chinnappan, Govindaraju, Thangaraju and Chinnammal (plaintiff), mainly for the purpose of comparing the signatures and thumb impression of the vendors along with their admitted signatures by handwriting expert or finger print expert, Forensic Laboratory, Director General of Police, Chennai or any other Expert by appointing an advocate-commissioner to take the document to the Expert.

(2.) THE respondent as plaintiff filed the suit against her brother, the first defendant and the second defendant, who is the son of another brother of the plaintiff, by name Kandasamy and claiming that the suit properties are the self-acquired properties of the mother Perumayee Ammal and her husband also died. It is the case of the plaintiff that Perumayee Ammal purchased item 1 of the suit properties from Kuppa Gounder and his minor sons as per the sale deed dated 24.5.1972 and she also purchased the second item from one Chinnasami Naicker and his minor son as per sale deed dated 23.1.1950. Therefore, claiming her 1/3rd share in the suit properties, the partition suit was filed.

(3.) IT appears, the plaintiff has let in evidence in the suit by examining herself as P.W.1 and examined one Ponnusamy as P.W.2 to produce the sale agreement dated 26.12.1995, in his favour executed by the defendants 1 and 2 and the plaintiff and one C. Govindaraju and C. Thangaraju and the same has been marked as Ex.X-1. The defendants have denied the execution of Ex.X-1, sale agreement in favour of P.W.2 along with the plaintiff and two other and it is their case that the sale agreement is a forged document. Therefore, to compare the signatures in the sale agreement of the defendants and C. Govindaraju and C. Thangaraju and thumb impression of the plaintiff, the defendants filed the petition in I.A. No. 889 of 2004. The petition was opposed in the counter filed by the plaintiff.