Madras High Court
R.R.Parthipan vs R.Kamala
Author: T.Krishnavalli
Bench: T.Krishnavalli
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Date of Reservation 23.03.2021
Date of Order 24.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.KRISHNAVALLI
CRP (PD)(MD)No.429 of 2018
and
CMP(MD)No.1891 of 2018
R.R.Parthipan : Petitioner/Petitioner/Plaintiff
Vs.
1.R.Kamala
2.M.Jeyanthi
3.M.Anandhi : Respondents/Respondents/
Defendants 1 to 3
PRAYER: Civil Revision has been filed under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order, dated
31.01.2018 passed in I.A No.115 of 2017 in O.S No.50 of 2014 on
the file of the I Additional District Judge, Tuticorin.
For Petitioner : Mr.Ka.Raamakrishnan
For Respondents : Mr.B.Rajesh Saravanan
ORDER
This Civil Revision is filed against the fair and decreetal order, dated 31.01.2018 passed in I.A No.115 of 2017 in O.S No.50 of 2014 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Tuticorin. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 2
2.The revision petitioner herein filed the suit in O.S No.50 of 2014 against the respondents for declaration, declaring the settlement deed bearing document No.840/2014, dated 13.03.2014 as null and void and for partition and separate possession. Whereas the suit in O.S No.192 of 2014 was filed by the 2nd respondent as against the petitioner herein for recover of possession. Since both the suits were connected and had identical issues, the petitioner filed an application in Transfer O.P No.77 of 2015 before the Principal District Judge, Tuticorin to transfer the O.S No.192 of 2014 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Tuticorin, to try along with the suit in O.S No.50 of 2014 pending on the file of the 1 Additional District Judge, Tuticorin. The said petition was allowed, on 19.10.2016 and accordingly, the suit in O.S No.192 of 2014 was transferred to the I Additional District Judge, Tuticorin and taken on its file as O.S No.65 of 2016. In the interregnum, the petitioner herein filed an application in I.A No.115 of 2017 praying for expert opinion for the settlement deed bearing document No.840/2014. The said petition was dismissed by the I Additional District Judge, Tuticorin, by order, dated 31.01.2018. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner is before this court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 3
3.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff argued that the 1st respondent/1st defendant did not file any counter in I.A No.115 of 2017, which means adverse inference could be drawn against the 1st respondent/1st defendant that she did not have any objection in sending the disputed document for verification by expert and the counter filed by the 2nd respondent/2nd defendant shows the mala fide intention of her and in the written statement filed by the 1st respondent/1st defendant, she put her thumb impression, but in the disputed document, there was signature of the 1st respondent/1st defendant found and hence, the expert opinion would resolve the entire issues, when arguing in the suit and the same will also helpful to the trial court to render a correct judgment and the 1st respondent/1st defendant is not mentally fit and her thumb impression has been affixed in the written statement without her knowledge and for proper adjudication, the disputed document and admitted document can be sent to the expert opinion and prays that the Civil Revision has to be allowed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 4
5.On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants argued that the 1st respondent/1st defendant is mentally fit stage and she only executed the settlement and the 1st respondent/1st defendant appeared before the Court and examined herself and in order to expose from O.S. No.192 of 2014, the petitioner filed this petition and there was no mala fide intention on the part of the 2nd respondent/2nd defendant and hence, it is not necessary to send the admitted and disputed document to expert opinion and prays that the Civil Revision has to be dismissed.
6.The main contention of the petitioner/plaintiff is that the settlement deed, dated 13.03.2014 was not executed by the 1st respondent/1st defendant and it was fabricated by the 2nd respondent/2nd defendant and hence, it is necessary to compare the signature found in the above settlement deed with the admitted signature of the 1st respondent/1st defendant in the plaint and valakat filed in O.S No.65 of 2016.
7.On careful perusal of the materials available on record, the petitioner/plaintiff seeks permission to compare the signature https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 5 found in the settlement deed, dated 13.03.2014 with the admitted signature of the 1st respondent/1st defendant in plaint and vakalat filed in O.S No.65 of 2016. The disputed document is of the year 2014. No document was filed to show that the admitted signature of the 1st respondent/1st defendant is of the year 2014. But the petitioner/plaintiff filed petition to compare the disputed signature of the 1st respondent/1st defendant with the admitted signature found in the plaint, and vakalath, in O.S No.65 of 2016. The admitted signature and the disputed signature of the 1st respondent/1st defendant must be the same year. No document containing the admitted signature of the 1st respondent/1st defendant during the year 2014 was filed. Hence, it is not necessary to compare the admitted signature of the year 2014 with the signature of the 1st respondent/1st defendant found in the plaint and vakalath filed in O.S No.25 of 2016. It is to be noted here hat already, the 1st respondent/1st defendant appeared before the trial court to prove that she was in sound state of mind and it is to be decided whether the settlement deed alleged to have be executed by the 1st respondent/1st defendant is valid or not only by examining the witness during trial.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 6
8.For all the reasons stated above, this court is of the considered view that the trial court considering all these aspects, has rightly dismissed the impugned order, dated 31.01.2018 passed in I.A No.115 of 2017 in O.S No.50 of 2014 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Tuticorin.
9.In view os that, this Civil Revision is dismissed. However, the I Additional District Judge, Tuticorin, is directed to dispose of the suits O.S No.192 of 2014 and O.S No.65 of 2016 purely on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
24.06.2021 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No er Note :
In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/ litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 7 T.KRISHNAVALLI.J., er To
1.The I Additional District Judge, Tuticiron.
2.The Record Keeper, V.R Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.CRP (PD)(MD)No.429 of 2018
24.06.2021 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/