SHANMUGA Vs. RUKMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The original suit O.S. No.258 of 2006 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Kangeyam was filed by the respondent herein against late Shanmuga Velar for a declaration that they were the absolute owners of the suit property and for an injunction not to interfere with their possession and enjoyment.

(2.) The said claim was made by the respondents based on a sale deed dated 21.05.1973 alleged to have been executed by Shanmuga Velar in favour of one Angamuthu to whom the respondents/plaintiffs trace their title. The said Shanmuga Velar, who was the sole defendant in the suit, filed a written statement denying the averment that he had executed the above said sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of Angamuthu. Subsequently, Shanmuga Velar, who figured as the sole defendant in the suit passed away on 21.06.2007, pursuant to which his legal heirs were impleaded as defendants 2 to 5. The defendants 2 to 5 in the said suit filed an earlier application I.A. No.801 of 2010 for referring the disputed document to a handwriting expert for his opinion to be given after comparing signature found therein with the admitted signatures of Shanmuga Velar therein. The signatures found in his vakalat and the written statement were sought to be used for comparison with the signature found in the disputed document. In addition to those documents which came into existence after the filing of the suit, the petitioners also wanted to use a sale deed dated 08.05.2007 as the other document containing the admitted signature of Shanmuga Velar, which could be used for comparison with the signature found in the disputed document. Since the said documents admittedly came into existence after the filing of the suit, the said petition was resisted and the objection raised by the respondents herein was sustained by the trial Court, resulting in the dismissal of the said application I.A. No.801 of 2010 by an order dated 07.09.2010. Thereafter, on 17.10.2010, the revision petitioners filed another application I.A. No.1505 of 2010 for the very same purpose producing 5 documents, which according to them were suitable for comparison with the disputed document. Those five documents are

(3.) The learned trial Judge, at the conclusion of hearing, came to the conclusion that all those documents were unfit for being compared with the disputed document as those documents were not contemporary with the disputed document and they came into existence several years after the execution of the disputed document dated 21.05.1973. It was also observed by the learned trial Judge that signatures might have changed during the passage of more than 20 years and hence, the prayer made by the petitioners could not be granted. The petitioners have come forward with the present revision challenging the said order of the trial Court dated 27.09.2011 made in I.A. No.1505 of 2010.