KANNAGI Vs. K. KANDASAMY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the impugned order dated 09.06.2015 passed in I.A. Nos. 55 and 56 of 2015 respectively, in O.S. No. 44 of 2011, under Sec. 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send the documents Ex. A2 and Ex. B2 to expert for comparing the signature of the second defendant and her sons and under Order 26 Rule 10(A) of C.P.C., to send the documents Ex. A2 and Ex. B2 to expert and to obtain a report from him, respectively, which came to be dismissed, these revisions have been filed.

(2.) Heard both sides.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the first respondent as the plaintiff filed the suit in O.S. No. 44 of 2011 for specific performance stating that the properties originally belong to the second defendant and she executed Power of Attorney in favour of the first defendant on 15.12.2010 and on that basis he entered into a sale agreement on 04.07.2011 and since the second defendant has not executed the sale deed, he filed the suit for specific performance after issuance of notice. Now, the second defendant/petitioner herein raise the plea that the document under Ex. B2, the receipt for Rs. 2 Lakhs does not contain her signature and that document has been concocted for the purpose of the case as if the sale consideration has been paid to this petitioner. To prove the document is forged one, she filed these two applications, but those applications have been dismissed stating that as per Sec. 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Court is empowered to compare the admitted signature with the disputed signature, against which the present revisions have been preferred.