The admissibility of a registered document for comparison and the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for the comparison.

JUDGMENT :

1. The plaintiffs are the revision petitioners before this court and the revision is filed challenging the dismissal of an application filed by the plaintiffs in I.A.No.5 of 2017, to send for the original sale deed dated 18.10.2012, registered as document No.2825/2012 on the file of the Special Deputy Collector (Stamp Duty), Salem, to the Court.

2. To have more clarity on the above application, the admitted facts as set out in the pleadings is herein below reproduced.

3. The plaintiffs who are 45 in number, with the 45th plaintiff being the Power Agent of the other plaintiffs, had filed the suit O.S.No.64 of 2015 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, to set aside the sale deed dated 18.10.2012, registered as Document No.2825 of 2012 on the file of the Sub-Registrar Office, Kaveripattanam and cancel the same as being null and void.

4. The basis upon which the suit has been filed is that the plaintiffs 1 to 44 who are the owners of the properties which have been described in the A and B Schedule of the suit schedule property had executed Power of Attorney deeds in favour of the 45th plaintiff on various dates (all of which has been detailed in the plaint), to negotiate and sell the properties to prospective purchasers.

5. The 45th plaintiff had also sold certain properties to defendants 1 to 3 and by reason of which he had become acquainted with them. By reason of this acquaintance, defendants 1 to 3 along with the 4th defendant had approached the 45th plaintiff with an offer to purchase A and B Schedule properties. They had jointly agreed to purchase the A-Schedule property for a total sale consideration of Rs.20,00,000/- and defendants 3 and 4 had agreed to purchase the B-Schedule property for a total sum of Rs.15,00,000/-. The defendants 1 to 4 had informed the 45th plaintiff that they intended to develop the lands into house sites/Industrial sites etc., and sell them to intending purchasers and that the sale consideration would be cleared in due course. Meanwhile, the 5th and 6th defendants who owned small pieces of land and who were close friends of defendants 1 and 2 had also included their property into the schedule of properties along with the plaintiffs.

6. It was the further case of the plaintiffs that the 45th plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4 had approached an Advocate to draft the sale deeds and the stamp papers were also purchased. The plaintiffs would give details of the stamp papers, the stamp vendor and the denominations as also the documents that had been engrossed on these stamp papers. The plaintiffs would contend that they had retained xerox copies of the said sale deeds and infact on 08.10.2012, the Power Agent was urgently called to the Sub-Registrar Office, Kaveripattanam, to complete the registration formalities and believing that the documents were the same that had been prepared, the Power Agent had signed the said documents. Thereafter, the Power Agent requested the defendants to pay up the sale consideration. However, they started giving evasive replies which created a doubt in the mind of the Power Agent.

7. Meanwhile, some of the land owners had lodged complaint against the 45th plaintiff as well the defendants 1 to 4 stating that the were guilty of land grabbing and the Police of the land grabbing cell had also summoned the 45th plaintiff and made enquiries. During the course of this enquiry, the defendants 1 and 2 had made available the xerox copy of the sale deed which was registered and on perusing the said document the plaintiffs came to realise that the defendants had manipulated the sale deeds and the sale deeds contained several interpolations which included additions and deletions even with reference to the survey numbers and that apart the stamp papers which was produced were not the stamp papers upon which the original sale deeds had been drafted. This coupled with the fact that the payments had not been cleared prompted the plaintiffs to lodge a compla