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.) THE revision petitioners as defendants 1 and 2 filed written statement disputing the fact that the plaintiff is the daughter of Perumayee Ammal and Perumal Gounder and denying that the first defendant is the brother of the plaintiff and Kandasamy, who is the father of the second defendant. It is admitted that the suit properties are self-acquired properties of Perumayee Ammal. The suit is also resisted that Perumayee Ammal executed Will in favour of C. K. Dhanapal, C. Govindaraj and C. Thangaraj on 28. 7. 1995 and subsequently she died on 30. 8. 1995 and as such, the Will has come into force. Therefore, according to the defendants 1 and 2, the plaintiff and the defendants had no share in the suit properties.