The main legal point established in the judgment is the statutory duty of the plaintiff to approach the Sub-Registrar's office and the higher authority as prescribed in the Registration Act before filing a suit, and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in determining the genuineness of disputed signatures.

The plaintiff is the appellant. The plaintiff/1st respondent filed O.S.No.214 of 2000 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Sirkali for permanent injunction. The trial Court decreed the suit by judgment dated 22.08.2003. Challenging the same, the 1st defendant/appellant filed A.S.No.150 of 2003 before the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai. The First Appellate Court allowed the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 22.08.2003. Challenging the same, the unsuccessful appellant has come forward with this second appeal.

2. The case of the appellant/plaintiff is as follows:-

The plaintiff is the owner of the suit property. The plaintiff has purchased the suit property under a sale deed dated 24.01.1992. The plaintiff has been in possession of the suit property as absolute owner. The defendant is the brother of the plaintiff's husband. The plaintiff and her husband borrowed a sum of Rs.10,000/- from the defendant in March 1997. The defendant obtained signatures from the plaintiff and her husband in white blank papers and on blank papers affixed with revenue stamps assuring that he would keep the signed blank papers as security and would return same after discharging the debts. But the defendant presented a document styled as sale deed dated 20.01.98 alleged to have executed by the plaintiff and hence the plaintiff has filed this suit for permanent injunction.

3. In the written statement, the 1st defendant / 1st Respondent has pleaded as follows:-

The suit is not sustainable in law, that the plaintiff has no title or right over the suit property, that the plaintiff had signed the sale deed dated 21.01.1998 in favour of the 1st defendant after receiving the entire sale consideration, that during registration of the said sale deed, this false suit has been filed to drag on the proceedings and hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4. In the written statement, the 2nd defendant / 2nd Respondent has pleaded as follows -

The allegations made in the plaint are denied. This defendant is not connected with the dispute between the 1st defendant and the plaintiff, that this defendant is an unnecessary party to the suit and that this defendant had issued notice to the plaintiff in the regular course of his official function and discharged his duty, that this defendant could not decide the question of forgery in appeal under Section 73 of Indian Registration Act and that the suit is liable to be dismissed for mis-joinder of unnecessary party.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed relevant issues. During the trial of the case, plaintiff examined two witnesses, PW1 & PW2 and as many as seven documents were exhibited as Exs.A.1 to A.7. On the side of the defendant, DWS1 to DW5 were examined and Ex.B1 was

marked. Having considered the oral and documentary evidence adduced, the trial Court decreed the suit by judgment and decree dated 22.08.2003. Aggrieved by the same, the unsuccessful defendant has preferred an appeal in A.S.No.150 of 2003 on the file of the learned Additional Sub Court, Mayiladuthurai.

6. The First Appellate Court, on considering the materials on record, allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court in O.S.No.214/2000 dated 22.08.2003. Challenging the same, the plaintiff/ appellant has come forward with the present Second Appeal.

7. While admitting the Second Appeal, this Court has framed the following substantial questions of law:-

1.Whether the Civil Courts are not entitled to give a finding as to the genuineness of a signature found in a document after considering the depositions of attestors, scribe and other witnesses produced by a party relying on such document? Whether seeking opinion from handwriting expert is compulsory or condition precedent for civil court to give a finding as to genuineness of a disputed signature?

2.When a signature in a document is disputed by executor of document, whether it is not the duty of pe