The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of obtaining expert opinion for comparing disputed signatures, as well as the requirement for contemporaneous documents for comparison, as per Sec.73 and Sec.45 of the Evidence Act, 1872.

The Petitioner is challenging the Order dated 05.02.2008 made in I.A.No.5915 of 2006 in O.S.No.967 of 1999 on the file of the XII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. The second plaintiff in O.S.No.967 of 1999 on the file of the XII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai is the revision petitioner before this Court. He is aggrieved by the order of the trial court in I.A.No.5915 of 2006 filed by him to send the original of Ex.B4 Sale deed dated 24.04.1969 along with the original of Ex.A3, A23 and A28 to compare the signature of S.A. Lazarous found there and to give a report. The trial court dismissed the I.A.No.5915 of 2006 on 5.02.2008 by holding that as the suit has been pending for more than seven years and as the trial court itself got ample powers to compare the disputed signatures with the admitted signatures, it does not find any validity or valid reason to send the original Ex.B4 to Hand writing expert at that stage.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr. R. Krishnamoorthy, the learned Senior counsel for the third respondent/Caveator. I have also gone through the entire documents available in the record.

4. O.S.No.967 of 1999 has been filed by the plaintiffs for the following reliefs viz., (1) The decree of declaration, declaring that the document No.1176 of 1969 dated 24.04.1969 and other subsequent documents, a Power of Attorney in document No.536/95 dated 09.08.1995 and the deed of sale in document No.3147/95 dated 27.09.1995 is forged and fabricated one and it is null and void, infructuous and will not bind the plaintiffs or other legal heirs of the late Lazarous and Abarnamary in the suit schedule property at No.7, Muthugramani Street, Purasawalkam, Chennai 7;

(2) to pass an order of permanent injunction restraining the third defendant, or their men, agents, servants, representatives or by anybody else or through her Power of Attorney agent or any legal heirs for any other transaction either sale, or mortgage of the suit schedule property bearing door No.7, Muthugramani Street, Purasawalkam, Chennai 7;

(3) to pass an order of permanent injunction restraining the third defendant, or her men, agents, servants, representatives, henchmen, legal heir or anybody else, from disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property of the plaintiffs bearing door No.7, Muthugramani Street, Purasawalkam, Chennai 7.

5. According to the plaintiffs, the suit property was originally purchased by the first plaintiffs father S.A. Lazerous and his mother Abarna Mary. The sale deed executed in their favour was registered as Doc.No.2828/34 dated 010. 1934. During their lifetime, the parents of the first plaintiff mortgaged the suit schedule property on several occasions namely, 7. 1935, 04.05.1945, 16.04.1949, 110. 1956 and 09.08.1958 and finally on 22.04.1964. The last mortgage made on 22.04.1966 was cancelled on 29.04.1974. After the death of the parents of the first plaintiff, the plaintiffs put up a pucca building in the suit schedule premises and spent more than Rs.7 lakhs after removing the old structure. The first defendant is the wife of the first plaintiffs maternal uncle. The first defendant and her late husband made very many forged and fabricated documents against the parents of the first plaintiff with an intention to grab the suit schedule property. After the death of the first plaintiffs parents, the first and third defendants sent a letter to the first plaintiff stating that the first plaintiff had to pay a monthly rent of Rs.2000/- to the third defendant who is the owner of the suit property having purchased the same from the second defendant who is the Power of Attorney. Shocked and surprised by the demand, the plaintiffs went to the house of the first defendant at Purasaiwalkam and found that the first defendant is suffering from mental disorder and the first defendants son colluded with the second defendant and the third defendant to make some forged documents for