Madras High Court
Minor M.M.Miruthulaa vs Mallaiyan on 12 September, 2017
Author: T.Ravindran
Bench: T.Ravindran
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 12.09.2017
Date of Reserving the Order
Date of Pronouncing the Order
31.08.2017
12.09.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAVINDRAN
C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.1095 of 2017
and
C.M.P.(MD) No.4839 of 2017
Minor M.M.Miruthulaa ... Petitioner
(Rep. by her Mother and Natural Guardian R.S.Niranjana)
-vs-
1.Mallaiyan
2.M.Maheswaran
3.G.Vimala
4.S.Gayatri
5.P.Pappammal
6.P.Suresh
7.V.Manohari
8.R.Seetha
9.A.Muthu Lakshmi ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed, under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, to set aside the order, dated 12.01.2017, made in
I.A.No.296 of 2015 in O.S.No.2 of 2015, on the file of the Additional
District Court, Dindigul.
!For Petitioner : Mr.V.Sitharanjandas
^For Respondents : Mr.M.V.Venkataseshan for R1
Mr.M.Vijayakumar for R2 to R9
:ORDER
The fair and decreetal orders, dated 12.01.2017, made in I.A.No.296 of 2015 in O.S.No.2 of 2015, on the file of the Additional District Court, Dindigul, are being impugned in this civil revision petition.
2. The petitioner / plaintiff seeking to compare the signature found in the document bearing registration No.2748 of 2002, on the file of the Sub- Registrar, Nagalnaickanpatti, with that of the signature found in the admitted document bearing registration No.778 of 1982, on the file of the same Sub-Registrar, by an expert, moved necessary application before the Court below and the Court below, on a consideration of the rival contentions put forth by the respective parties having disallowed the said application by the impugned order, the civil revision petition has been levelled challenging the same.
3. It is found that the petitioner / plaintiff has laid the suit for partition. It is further seen that according to the petitioner / plaintiff, 'A' schedule property had been purchased by the deceased Mallaiya Gounder, who is the father of the first defendant and the deceased Perumal Gounder. However, in the present application, as rightly found by the Court below, according to the petitioner / plaintiff, the said 'A' schedule property is comprised in the document bearing registration No.1788 of 1961 and the above said property had been dealt with by the first defendant and as rightly found by the Court below, it is seen that the seller of the transaction of the document No.2748 of 2002 is one Mallaiya Gounder, son of Mallaiya Gounder and now pleading that the said Mallaiya Gounder, as mentioned in the above said document, is only the first defendant and further, pleading that the first defendant i.e., Mallaiya Gounder, son of Mallaiya Gounder, had acquired the said property by way of the document No.1788 of 1961, has sought for the relief of comparing the signature found in the above said document by way of an expert. Thus, finding that the above relief sought for by the petitioner / plaintiff is against her case, wherein according to the petitioner / plaintiff, the property in question i.e., 'A' schedule property was purchased by the deceased Mallaiya Gounder, father of the first defendant and the deceased Perumal Gounder and whereas in the document produced in the Court bearing registration No.1788 of 1961, there is a reference about the purchase of the property only by Mallaiya Gounder, son of Mallaiya Gounder and subsequently, the same person had alienated the property by way of the document No.2748 of 2002, the said case being found to be completely inconsistent with the pleadings already set out by the petitioner / plaintiff in the plaint and further, finding that the signatures for which the comparison is sought for are found to have been effected by one Mallaiya Gowder and when it is found that the first defendant has been described in the plaint only as M.Mallaiyan, son of the deceased Mallaiya Gounder and further finding that the first defendant having completely refuted the case of the petitioner / plaintiff and disowning the above said transactions as not having been made by him, the Court below holding that the petitioner / plaintiff having come forward with the suit alleging that 'A' schedule property is the ancestral property and purchased by the first defendant's father should establish her case only by the evidence available with her possession and custody and therefore, cannot now project a new case as above mentioned alleging that the transactions referred to are effected by the first defendant as such and therefore, the petitioner / plaintiff is not entitled to obtain the relief as prayed for and dismissed the application.
4. Considering the plaint averments and the reasons now given by the petitioner / plaintiff for expert examination of the documents in question and when the said documents in question are being refuted by the first defendant completely and when the documents in question are found to be completely inconsistent with the pleading already set out in the plaint and further when, on the face of it, the first defendant having been described as the son of Mallaiya Gounder and when the documents in question are stated to be executed by one Mallaiya Gounder, son of Mallaiya Gounder, it is found that the present attempt by the petitioner / plaintiff seeking for comparison of the signatures by an expert in the above mentioned documents is not going to lead the Court anywhere and it is nothing but an attempt to further delay the proceedings and also it would go against the petitioner / plaintiff's case, it is found that the Court below, has rightly discountenanced the application.
5. That apart, as found by the Court below, to which it is also entitled to as per law, when the purported signatures found in the documents concerned seem to be different and not having nexus to each other on the perusal of the documents by the naked eye itself, as rightly found by the Court below, there is no need for examination of the documents by an expert and therefore, the petitioner / plaintiff having come forward with the specific case for the relief for partition should establish her case by the evidence available in her custody and therefore, in such view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion, the impugned order of the Court below does not call for any interference from this Court and hence, the civil revision petition in not entitled for acceptance.
6. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner / plaintiff report in (2008) 4 SCC 530 [Thiruvengadam Pillai vs. Navaneethammal and another] is noway useful to accept the petitioner / plaintiff's case as such for sustaining her application as it is found that when the documents produced in the matter are found to be inconsistent with the pleadings already set out in the plaint, the petitioner/ plaintiff's request for comparison cannot be acceded to.
7. In view of the foregoing reasons, the civil revision petition is dismissed with costs. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.
To:
The Additional District Judge, Dindigul.
.