M NALLAMMAL Vs. PADMAVATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Mother/Testator of the petitioner filed a suit against the respondents/defendants. During the pendency of the suit, the Testator died. After the decree, the mother of the revision petitioner has filed the suit against the respondents/defendants and the same was partly decreed against which the plaintiff has filed an appeal before this Court in A.S.No.170 of 2016. This Court in A.S.No.170 of 2006 setting aside the judgment and decree in O.S.No.59 of 2003 as well as the order passed in I.A.No.409 of 2004 and the matter is remitted back to the Trial Court. The revision petitioner has filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.542 of 2014. During the pendency of the suit, the mother of the plaintiff executed a Will. Therefore, the petitioner wanted to send the Will for getting expert opinion. That application was dismissed by the trial court. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Trial Court, the petitioner has filed the present revision.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that during the pendency of the suit, the mother of the plaintiff died. Therefore, the mother of the petitioner has executed the Will and the Will has got to be proved. Therefore, the respondents disputed the Will. Hence, the Will has got to be sent for getting expert opinion. Since the respondents denied the execution of the Will, it is necessary to send the disputed Will for getting expert opinion, with an admitted thumb impression found in the document executed by the Testator.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the respondents denied the very genuineness of the Will itself, and the genuineness of the Will has got to be proved in the suit not by way of filing this application. Therefore, there is no perversity in the order passed by the trial court and there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the trial court.