ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed in I.A.No.6 of 2023 in O.S.No.65 of 2018, dated 20.07.2023, on the file of the Principal District Court, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputtur, in dismissing the petition filed under Order 26 Rule 10(A) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. The revision petitioners as plaintiffs have filed the suit to declare that the suit property is belonging to them and for consequential relief of recovery of possession. Admittedly the first plaintiff is the mother of the plaintiffs 2 to 6. The defendants have filed written statements separately and are defending the suit. Pending suit, the first plaintiff had died.

3. Pending trial, the plaintiffs have filed an application in I.A.No.6 of 2023 under Order 26 Rule 10(A) C.P.C., seeking orders to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for taking the original registered sale deed dated 18.09.1967 along with the documents containing admitted signatures and produce the same before the handwriting expert of the Tamil Nadu Forensic Department, Madurai and to obtain a report. The first respondent / first defendant has filed counter statement raising serious objections. The learned Principal District Judge, after enquiry, has passed the impugned order dated 20.07.2023 dismissing the petition. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the plaintiffs have come forward with the present revision.

4. The case of the revision petitioners / plaintiffs is that the suit property and other properties were originally owned by Seenivasa Naickar, S/o Ramasamy Naickar, who is the husband of the first plaintiff and the father of the plaintiffs 2 to 6, that the said Seenivasa Naickar had died on 26.01.2006 leaving behind the plaintiffs as his legal heirs, that the plaintiffs through encumbrance certificates came to know that the first defendant had obtained loan from the second defendant and for the said borrowal, the suit property had been mortgaged to the second defendant by the first defendant, that the plaintiffs have then sent a legal notice to the defendants, for which the first defendant has sent a reply notice with false and vexatious averments, that the first defendant had alleged that the suit property originally belonged to Seenivasan, S/o Gopalsamy Naickar and Seenivasan, S/o Ramasamy Naickar and both of them jointly executed a registered sale deed on 18.09.1967 in favour of Vaikunda raman Nadar, Rathinasamy Nadar, Sundar raj Nadar and Sangana Nadar for valuable consideration and after purchase, they were alone in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit property, that the plaintiffs subsequently came to know that the signatures of G.R. Seenivasan found in the sale deed dated 18.09.1967 are not that of their father Seenivasan, that they have impersonated and fabricated and fraudulently created the document and that therefore, they were constrained to file the above suit to declare their title to the suit property and for their possession.

5. The defence of the first defendant is that the suit property and several other properties were owned by Srinivasa Naicker, S/o Ramasamy Naicker, that the said G.R.Srinivasa Naidu and another Seenivasan, son of Koppini Gopalsamy had jointly sold the suit land on 18.09.1967 in favour of Vaikunda raman Nadar, Rathinasamy Nadar, Sundar raj Nadar and Sangana Nadar of Sivakasi, who had been carrying on the business of manufacture of fireworks in partnership in the name and style of M/s The Rathna Fireworks Factory even earlier to 1967, that the said purchasers had thrown the suit land into common pool of partnership, that the said Seenivasan had sold few other lands to the above Vaigundarama Nadar and 3 others, that the plaintiffs had not whispered anything about their possession and enjoyment of their property since 1967 till the filing of the suit, that the plaintiffs have no cause of action to the suit and that therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

6. It is not in dispute that the plaintiffs have fi