CRP. No. 1086 of 1986-B.

1. The first defendant challenges the order passed by the Munsiff Court, Ottapalam. The plaintiff filed a suit for injunction. Defendants 1 to 3 contended that the plaintiff has no title and possession of the plaint schedule property. Further, they contended that the title deed of the plaintiff is not genuine but a bogus one. These contentions were raised on the ground that the first defendant has transferred the property in favour of the plaintiff. When the execution of the document of title relied on by the plaintiff was denied by the first defendant, the plaintiff wanted the court to obtain the expert opinion regarding the thumb impression in the document. For the comparison of the thumb impressions he filed an application before the court to obtain a thumb impression of the first defendant. The first defendant made a representation that she is not in a position (of course now she is aged 77) to present herself before the court. So, the court appointed an officer of the court to get the thumb impressions of the first defendant for the purpose of sending the same to an expert. The plaintiff deposited the required amount of Rs. 2,270/-. The spec