T K MANIKANDAN Vs. S MOHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS in O.S.No.107 of 1998 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge's Court at Nagercoil, are the revision petitioners. Suit filed by the respondent was one for specific performance of an agreement for sale. Execution of the agreement was denied by the petitioners.

(2.) EVIDENCE was taken and after four witnesses were examined on the side of plaintiff, an interlocutory application was filed as I.A.No.107 of 1998 for sending the agreement for sale for getting an expert opinion regarding signature, They want the signature to be compared with the admitted signature in certain documents executed prior to the institution of the suit.

(3.) IT is true that in Q.Bharathan v. K.Sudhakaran Q.Bharathan v. K.Sudhakaran Q.Bharathan v. K.Sudhakaran , (1996)2 S.C.C. 704 the Hon?ble Supreme Court held that the court should avoid comparing the signature and should not play the role of an expert, I do not think that principle is applicable in civil cases. In that case, the Hon?ble Supreme Court was dealing with on election matter where the allegation was regarding corrupt practice, impersonation etc. In election cases, the proof beyond doubt will have to be adduced, But in the civil cases, the decision is based on preponderance of probabilities. Even in the criminal cases, the Hon?ble Supreme Court has compared the signature and upheld the conviction and the same has been reported in Ajit Savant Majagvai v. State of Karnataka , (1997)7 S.C.C. 110. In judgment paras.36 to 39 will answer the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners. They read thus: