Back
2016 Supreme(Mad) 3328
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.V. MURALIDARAN, J.
V. Rajamani - Petitioner
Versus
Danabalan - Respondent
CRP.No.4217 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013 and CMP.No.4476 of 2016
Decided on : 25-10-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. P.Valliappan
For the Respondent: Mr. S.Kumaresan
Headnote:
Civil Law – Civil Suit - Suit for specific performance - Sale agreement - Execution of - Suit for specific performance on ground that this respondent / defendant has agreed to sell suit properties on sale agreement was executed in respect of suit properties - On same day, respondent/plaintiff has paid amount to respondent / defendant as per sale agreement - Case of respondent/defendant in written statement is that respondent/defendant is absolute owner of suit properties and he was purchased same, but he denied sale agreement in favour of petitioner/plaintiff - Held, When defendant admitted 1st page of his signature, there is no other document is necessary to produce by defendant for comparison of the signature found in other pages 2 and 3 of Ex.A1 since authority concerned may considered that signature found in 1st page of Ex.A1 to be compared with the pages 2 and 3 - Consider the case of respondent/defendant, trial Court is allowed said application, which is not requirement for interference by this Court - Therefore, Advocate Commissioner is proceed to produce to Ex.A1 before hand writing expert to compare signature of defendant in 1st page with pages 2 and 3 of Ex.A1 - Trial Court directed to expedite trial and dispose of suit within a period of three months from date of receipt of report of Advocate Commissioner and both parties are hereby directed to co-operate for early disposal of suit without getting any adjournment - Civil revision petition is dismissed.
The Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the Fair and decreetal order of the II Additional District Munsif Court at Erode, dated 10.10.2013 in I.A.No.390 of 2013 in O.S.No.641 of 2008.
2. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.641 of 2008 on the file of the 2nd Additional District Munsif Court, Erode.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner / plaintiff has filed the above suit for specific performance on the ground that this respondent / defendant has agreed to sell the suit properties for a sum of Rs.20,000/- and on the sale agreement was executed on 08.09.2002 in respect of the suit properties for a sum of Rs.20,000/-. On the same day, the respondent/plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- to the respondent / defendant as per the sale agreement dated 08.09.2002. The respondent/defendant should execute the sale deed in respect of the suit properties on or before 08.09.2008, on receipt of the balance sale consideration. But on the failure of execution of sale deed by the defendant, the revision petitioner/plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance in O.S.No.641 of 2008 before the above said Court.
4. The case of the respondent/defendant in the written statement is that the respondent/defendant is the absolute owner of the suit properties and he was purchased the same on 24.11.1995, but he denied the sale agreement dated 08.09.2002 in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff. Apart from this, he also states that the period of agreement is false one since as per the agreement the agreement is valid for 6 years i.e., on or before 08.09.2008. The respondent/ defendant states that there is no necessity for the defendant to sell the properties. Hence, he denying in the written statement about the execution of the sale agreement dated 08.09.2002 and equally denied the signature found in the sale agreement dated 08.09.2002.
5. While pendency of the above suit, the respondent/defendant has filed I.A.No.390 of 2013 before the said Court that for getting handwriting expert opinion in the above suit on the ground that the petitioner/plaintiff has produced an unregistered sale agreement which is marked as Ex.A1 as if it was executed by the respondent/defendant.
6. The further case of the respondent/defendant is that he never signed in the said sale agreement but there was a financial transaction between the respondent/defendant and petitioner/plaintiff's son viz., Mr.Sureshbabu. The respondent/defendant has also stated that the signature found in the 1st page of the agreement dated 08.09.2002 is admitted, whereas the signature found in the remaining pages or not belongs to the defendant and it should be compared by the hand writing expert for adjudication of the suit. Hence, he has filed the above application with a prayer to the trial Court that the signature found in the 1st page of Ex.A.1 and the remaining pages should be compared with hand writing expert for adjudication of the suit.
7. For the above application, the petitioner/plaintiff has filed his counter. In his counter, he alleged that the petition is false and fraudulent, since the respondent/defendant took a stand in the written statement that he never signed in the Ex.A1 whereas in Para-4 of the affidavit in I.A.No.390 of 2013, he said that the Ex.A1 is forged and fabricated one. As per his pleading there is no admitted signature found document has been produced for comparison of signature with Ex.A1. The petitioner is taking inconstant plea, it itself demonstrated that the respondent/defendant has executed Ex.A1. The respondent/ defendant differently signed in the Ex.A1 deliberately from page to page and the petition is highly belated one and hence the plaintiff sought for dismissal of the said application.
8. Considering both side cases of the respondent / defendant and the petitioner/plaintiff, the trial Court has allowed the above application on 10.10.2013 on the ground that the signature found in the 1st page of the Ex.A1 is of the
