Forged sale-agreement cannot be adduced in evidence.

The revision petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.1872 of 1996 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Salem. The revision is filed aggrieved against the order dated 19.7.2004 and made in I.A.No.889 of 2004, which was filed to send the document marked as Ex.X-1 dated 26.12.1995 in favour of P.W.2 Ponnusamy by C.K.Dhanapal, Chinnappan, Govindaraju, Thangaraju and Chinnammal(plaintiff), mainly for the purpose of comparing the signatures and thumb impression of the vendors along with their admitted signatures by Handwriting Expert or Finger Print Expert, Forensic Laboratory, Director General of Police, Chennai or any other Expert by appointing an advocate-commissioner to take the document to the Expert.

2. The respondent as plaintiff filed the suit against her brother, the first defendant and the second defendant, who is the son of another brother of the plaintiff, by name Kandasamy and claiming that the suit properties are the self-acquired properties of the mother Perumayee Ammal and her husband also died. It is the case of the plaintiff that Perumayee Ammal purchased item 1 of the suit properties from Kuppa Gounder and his minor sons as per the sale deed dated 24.5.1972 and she also purchased the second item from one Chinnasami Naicker and his minor son as per sale deed dated 23.1.1950. Therefore, claiming her 1/3rd share in the suit properties, the partition suit was filed.

3. The revision petitioners as defendants 1 and 2 filed written statement disputing the fact that the plaintiff is the daughter of Perumayee Ammal and Perumal Gounder and denying that the first defendant is the brother of the plaintiff and Kandasamy, who is the father of the second defendant. It is admitted that the suit properties are self-acquired properties of Perumayee Ammal. The suit is also resisted that Perumayee Ammal executed Will in favour of C.K.Dhanapal, C.Govindaraj and C.Thangaraj on 28.7.1995 and subsequently she died on 30.8.1995 and as such, the Will has come into force. Therefore, according to the defendants 1 and 2, the plaintiff and the defendants had no share in the suit properties.

4. It appears, the plaintiff has let in evidence in the suit by examining herself as P.W.1 and examined one Ponnusamy as P.W.2 to produce the sale agreement dated 26.12.1995 in his favour executed by the defendants 1 and 2 and the plaintiff and one C.Govindaraju and C.Thangaraju and the same has been marked as Ex.X-1. The defendants have denied the execution of Ex.X-1, sale agreement in favour of P.W.2 along with the plaintiff and two others and it is their case that the sale agreement is a forged document. Therefore, to compare the signatures in the sale agreement of the defendants and C.Govindaraju and C.Thangaraju and thumb impression of the plaintiff, the defendants filed the petition in I.A.No.889 of 2004. The petition was opposed in the counter filed by the plaintiff.

5. The trial Court dismissed the petition, considering that the suit is pending for more than 7 years and that there is no necessity to compare the signatures of C.K.Dhanapal, Chinnappan, Govindaraju, Thangaraju and the thumb impression of the plaintiff as claimed by the defendants 1 and 2 for that purpose the petition I.A.No.889 of 2004 was filed.

6. The document Ex.X-1 has been marked mainly to say that the plaintiff has been described as the daughter of Perumal Gounder, in which the first defendant is also described as the son of Perumal Gounder along with C.Govindaraju and C.Thangaraju, who are the sons of the first defendant.

7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that inasmuch as the document marked as Ex.X-1 through P.W.2 is disputed as not executed by the second defendant and the first defendant along with his two sons, viz., C.Govindaraju and C.Thangaraju, in which the first defendant is described as the son of Perumal Gounder and the plaintiff is described as the daughter of Perumal Gounder, it is just and necessary that the si