KOMARASAMY AND ORS Vs. BATHRI AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The arguments advanced by Mr.V.K.Gowtham, learned counsel for the revision petitioners are heard.

(2.) The respondents 1 to 5 in the revision petition filed the suit in O.S.No.122 of 2006 against the revision petitioners ranking them as defendants 1 and 2, and praying for a declaration that they (the respondents herein are the absolute owners of the suit property and also for a permanent injunction restraining the revision petitioners (defendants) from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment in respect of the suit property.

(3.) The revision petitioners resisted the suit projecting the sale deed obtained from one A.K.Khadija and based on their further contention that she in turn had purchased the property under a sale deed dated 11.09.1995 allegedly executed by the first respondent herein in favour of the said vendor of the revision petitioners. The genuineness of the said document was challenged by the respondents in the revision (plaintiffs). On an application filed by the respondents herein/plaintiffs in the trial Court, the said document allegedly containing the thumb impression of the first respondent was sent to the Forensic Lab for comparison with the admitted thumb impression of the first respondent. However, the expert submitted an opinion that the thumb impression found in the said disputed document was not capable of being compared as it was smudged.