G SENBAGARAMAN Vs. N MARIMUTHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner is the defendant in O. S. No. 761 of 2002 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Salem. The revision is filed against the dismissal of I. A. No. 251 of 2003 filed by the revision petitioner under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send the document, dated 27-8-2001 said to have been entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant, to the Government Handwriting Expert, Chennai along with the admitted signatures of the defendant for his comparison and report.

(2.) THE respondent/plaintiff filed the suit on 21-10-2002 for permanent injunction that his peaceful possession should not be disturbed by the defendant and his men. In the plaint it is set out that for the amount due to the defendant firm run in the name of Dhanalakshmi Timbers and payable by the V. M. Timbers run in the name of the plaintiffs wife and as per the request made by the defendant, the plaintiff executed the sale deed on 24-8-2001 conveying the family house and only by way of security for the amount due and payable during the business transaction, such sale deed was executed. On the basis of such sale deed , an agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant on 27-8-2001 styled as possessory agreement and as per the agreement, the defendant granted permission to the plaintiff and his family members to be in possession of the property sold and pursuant to such agreement, the plaintiff and his family members continued to be in possession of the said property. Since the defendant threatened to disposses the plaintiff and his family members from the house on 10-10-2002, which was prevented, the suit for permanent injunction was filed.

(3.) THE suit was resisted by filing written statement on 9-2-2003. It is admitted that a sum of Rs. 3,66,184/- was due and payable by the plaintiff for V. M. Timbers run by his wife. Further, according to the defendant, only after receiving the sale consideration of Rs. 2, 33,000/- in cash, the plaintiff executed the sale deed and the plaintiffs wife and son also stood as witnesses to the sale deed. It is denied by the defendant that an agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant on 27-8-2001 styled as possessory agreement and according to the defendant, the said document is forged.