XAVIER Vs. VAIDOORIYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner is challenging the Order dated 05.02.2008 made in I.A.No.5915 of 2006 in O.S.No.967 of 1999 on the file of the XII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

(2.) THE second plaintiff in O.S.No.967 of 1999 on the file of the XII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai is the revision petitioner before this Court. He is aggrieved by the order of the trial court in I.A.No.5915 of 2006 filed by him to send the original of Ex.B4 Sale deed dated 24.04.1969 along with the original of Ex.A3, A23 and A28 to compare the signature of S.A.Lazarous found there and to give a report. THE trial court dismissed the I.A.No.5915 of 2006 on 5.02.2008 by holding that as the suit has been pending for more than seven years and as the trial court itself got ample powers to compare the disputed signatures with the admitted signatures, it does not find any validity or valid reason to send the original Ex.B4 to Hand writing expert at that stage.

(3.) ACCORDING to the plaintiffs, the suit property was originally purchased by the first plaintiff's father S.A.Lazerous and his mother Abarna Mary. The sale deed executed in their favour was registered as Doc.No.2828/34 dated 06.10.1934. During their lifetime, the parents of the first plaintiff mortgaged the suit schedule property on several occasions namely, 9.7.1935, 04.05.1945, 16.04.1949, 16.10.1956 and 09.08.1958 and finally on 22.04.1964. The last mortgage made on 22.04.1966 was cancelled on 29.04.1974. After the death of the parents of the first plaintiff, the plaintiffs put up a pucca building in the suit schedule premises and spent more than Rs.7 lakhs after removing the old structure. The first defendant is the wife of the first plaintiff's maternal uncle. The first defendant and her late husband made very many forged and fabricated documents against the parents of the first plaintiff with an intention to grab the suit schedule property. After the death of the first plaintiff's parents, the first and third defendants sent a letter to the first plaintiff stating that the first plaintiff had to pay a monthly rent of Rs.2000/- to the third defendant who is the owner of the suit property having purchased the same from the second defendant who is the Power of Attorney. Shocked and surprised by the demand, the plaintiffs went to the house of the first defendant at Purasaiwalkam and found that the first defendant is suffering from mental disorder and the first defendant's son colluded with the second defendant and the third defendant to make some forged documents for the suit property in an illegal manner and in favour of the third defendant. On 17.10.1995, the first plaintiff lodged a complaint before G-1 Vepery Police Station. ACCORDING to the plaintiffs, the sale deed dated 24.04.1969 said to have been executed by the first plaintiff's parents, the Deed of Power dated 9.8.1995 said to have been executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant and the sale deed dated 27.09.1995 said to have been executed by the second defendant in favour of the third defendant are all forged and fabricated documents and therefore, they filed O.S.No.967 of 1999 for the aforesaid reliefs.