P. RAMAMOORTHY Vs. M. SADASIVAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in O.S. No. 346 of 1996 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Namakkal is the appellant herein. The respondents are the defendants in the suit. The said suit was filed for partition and for separate possession of 1/2 share in the suit property. The Trial Court dismissed the suit by decree and judgment dated 07.03.2005. As against the same an appeal was filed in A.S. No. 8 of 2005 before the learned Principal District Judge, Namakkal. The lower Appellate Court by decree and judgment dated 30.04.2009, allowed the appeal and set aside the decree and judgment of the trial Court and granted decree as prayed for in the plaint. As against the same, the second respondent herein filed a second appeal in S.A. No. 944 of 2009. This Court by a decree and judgment dated 12.04.2011, allowed the appeal and set aside the decree and judgment of the lower appellate Court, but remanded the matter back to the lower appellate Court for fresh disposal of the first appeal in accordance with law. This Court also granted liberty to both the parties to let in further evidence and also gave liberty to the appellant herein to compare the signature in the disputed Will with the admitted signature of Mr. Karuppana Gounder in contemporaneous documents by an expert. But the appellant did not take any steps to compare the disputed signature with the admitted signature of Mr. Karuppana Gounder by an expert. Thereafter, after having heard both sides, the lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal by a decree and judgment dated 28.11.2012, thereby, confirming the decree and judgment of the trial Court dated 07.03.2005. Challenging the same, the appellant is now before this Court with this second appeal.

(2.) THE first respondent Mr. M. Sadasivam remained ex parte all through. In this appeal also he remained ex parte. I have heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent as well as perused the records carefully. Today, this second appeal is taken up for admission. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows:

(3.) IN the written statement filed by the second respondent Mr. Doraisamy, he contended that the Will dated 29.01.1979, is not true and genuine and the same is a forged one. According to him, the Will dated 17.01.1979, executed by Mr. Karuppanna Gounder was the last Will, by which he has won the litigation for partition up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He would further state that the present suit has been filed only with a view to unnecessarily cause disturbance to the second respondent so as to thwart the final decree.