COMMON ORDER

These Civil Revision Petitions are filed as against the fair and decreetal order passed by the Additional Sub Court, Kumbakonam in I.A.Nos.178 and 179 of

2020, dated 14.02.2022.

2.The petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.222 of

2017. They have filed two interlocutory applications in I.A.Nos.178 and 179 of 2020. The application in I.A.No.178 of 2020 is filed for summoning the original document viz., lease deed registered in document No.2120 of 2005 dated 27.06.2005 executed by one Vadivel, S/o.Odayappan, before the Sub Registrar Office, Kumbakonam. The other application in I.A.No.179 of 2020 is filed for summoning the document, viz., the application submitted by O.Vadivel, S/o.Odayappan to the Tahsildar, Kumbakonam on 30.06.2005 for the purpose of comparing the genuineness of the signature of the said Odayappan in Ex.A2, unregistered Will dated 27.08.2006. The applications were dismissed by the trial Court and aggrieved over the same, the present civil revision petition is filed by the petitioners/

defendants.

3.The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents have filed the above suit in O.S.No.222 of 2017 for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction based on the Will dated 27.08.2006 executed by their father Vadivel, in favour of the plaintiffs. The suit property according to the learned Counsel is a joint family property and the respondents father is not having any absolute right over the property. The plaintiffs during the evidence marked the Will Ex.P2, which is an unregistered will and also examined one of the attestors as witness. The petitioners/defendants disputed the signature of the testator Vadivel in the alleged Will dated 27.08.2006 and in order to establish their case they have filed the above applications to call for the contemporaneous document, which is available with the Sub Registrar, Kumbakonam and with the Tahsildar, Kumbakonam. The testator Vadivel during his lifetime has executed the registered document dated 27.06.2005 and made an application before the Tahsildar for change of patta on 30.06.2005. The said interlocutory applications were dismissed by the trial Court that the party, who relies upon the document shall prove the same as per law. The document Ex.P2 was marked on the side of the plaintiffs and therefore, it is the duty of the plaintiffs to prove the same. The trial Court further stated that the Will was executed by the plaintiffs' father based on the exchange deed dated 07.06.2001, even assuming that the father of the plaintiffs would have died intestate, the plaintiffs are the only legal heirs to inherit the properties left by the father and therefore, there is no necessity for the defendants to prove the unregistered Will, which is marked as Ex.P2. The trial Court has also felt that the applications were filed to drag on the proceedings.

4.With regard to the observation of the trial Court, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the Will, which is marked as Ex.P2 is an unregistered Will. The unregistered Will has to be proved by examination of the attestors, by proving the genuineness of the signature. The plaintiffs in this case have examined one of the attestors and he is not a trustworthy witness. By examining one of the attestors, the plaintiffs have complied with the part of the requirement for proving the Will and therefore, the onus now shifts on the respondents / defendants and they can demonstrate their case only by referring the document for comparison of the signature through scientific investigation. The plaintiffs have completed their evidence and it is at the stage of the defendants' side evidence and at this stage, the defendants have filed these applications and it cannot be taken as an attempt to drag on the proceedings.

5.With regard to the other ground, the learned Counsel submits that even in the written statement itself, they have raised objections questioning the exchange deed dated 07.06.2001 and the registered W