SRIDHAR AND OTHERS Vs. ARUNKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No.119/2015 pending on the file of Principal District Munsif, Gingee, Villupuram District, are the petitioners in the present revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The respondent herein is the sole plaintiff in the above suit. The suit has been filed for permanent injunction, based on an averment that the respondent is the owner of the suit property and petitioners 1 and 2 herein/defendants 1 and 2 are trying to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

(2.) The revision petitioners herein, who entered appearance in the said suit, without even filing a written statement, chose to file I.A.No.719/2015 under Order XXVI Rule 10 CPC r/w Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to take the disputed document relied on by the respondent herein/plaintiff along with an admitted document, namely a partition deed dated 30.06.1986, to the Government Forensic Department so as to get the opinion of a finger print expert after comparing the left thumb impression of the father of the petitioners herein in both the documents. The petition was filed contending that the thumb impression had been forged and it had been affixed in such a way that more than one thumb impression overlap and that there was a deliberate attempt to disguise the thumb impressions.

(3.) The said petition was resisted by the respondent herein/plaintiff by filing a detailed counter contending that the document in question was executed by Thesu Reddiar, the father of the petitioners herein, in which, one of the petitioners herein, namely Sridhar, is an attesting witness; that the executor of the said sale deed dated 17.06.2005, died after the execution of the said document in favour of the father of the respondent herein, but before registration; that hence the father of the respondent herein had to seek compulsory registration of the same, which was rejected by the Sub Registrar, Ananthapuram driving the father of the respondent herein to approach the District Registrar for the said purpose; that on the summons issued by the District Registrar, 4 out of six legal heirs of the deceased Thesu Reddiar appeared before the District Registrar and the petitioners herein some how or other evaded direct service of the summons by the District Registrar for the first time and on the second occasion they refused to receive the summons and that even then they were served with such summons by substituted service, namely affixture. It was also contended that out of the four legal representatives of the deceased Thesu Reddiar, three did not deny the execution of the document by Thesu Reddiar and on the other hand, admitted such execution and one Sumathy, who alone disputed the execution of the said document by her father, did not lead evidence; that on the other hand, the other attestor of the document being the brother of Thesu Reddiar also deposed before the District Registrar admitting the execution of the document by Thesu Reddiar and his attesting the document; that after such an elaborate enquiry, the District Registrar passed an order directing compulsory registration of the document and that having suffered such an order and kept quiet for 10 years, the petitioners have chosen to give trouble when the respondent/plaintiff was making attempt to alienate the property.