The court upheld a trial court's dismissal of applications challenging the validity of documents due to lack of merit and sufficient evidence.

C O M M O N O R D E R

The revisions are taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission, with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioners as well the first respondent/caveator.

2. I have heard Mr.C.Murugesan, learned counsel for the Petitioners in both the revisions, Mr. Sachin Vinayak, learned counsel for the 1^st respondent and Mr. N. Muthuvel, learned Government Advocate for the 6^th respondent in both the revisions.

3. The revisions have been preferred, challenging the orders in I.A.No.1 & 2 of 2021 in O.S.No. 495 of 2006.

4. The brief facts are as follows:

The suit in O.S.No. 495 of 2006 has been filed to declare the sale deeds dated 18.05.1979 and 25.07.1979 as null and void, unenforceable and forged and for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants 1 to 6 from disturbing or interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Pending the said suit, the plaintiffs have filed Interlocutory Applications in I.A.No.1 of 2021 for sending the documents mentioned in the petition to the experts for comparison under Order 26 Rule 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'CPC'), viz., registered sale deed dated 20.02.1965 to compare the signature and thumb impression of Murugesan in the said document with that of the alleged forged document dated 18.05.1979 in Doc.No.1878 of 1979 to compare the signature of Murugesan and Krishnan. I.A.No.2 of 2021 has been filed under Order XVI Rule 6 of CPC to summon the first respondent and pass an order to produce the document, namely, the document dated 18.05.1979.

5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the father of the plaintiffs, Murugesan, who was shown as a party to the said forged document dated 18.05.1979, was sick and he had underwent surgery for correcting his eyesight, but however surgery failed and said Murugesan became blind. The sale deed dated 18.05.1979 has been brought about taking advantage of the blindness of the father of the plaintiffs and thereby the sale deed has been brought about in favour of the wife of Sukri Konar, namely Rangammal.

6. According to the plaintiffs, the witnesses are also false witnesses and by impersonation, Doc.No.2535 of 1979 has been brought about. It is also contended that one of the witnesses by name Krishnan is none else than the brother of said Murugesan and the said Krishnan has denied his signature as witness and he has not even gone to Sub-Registrar’s office, leave alone signed the document as one of the witnesses.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners therefore, contends that only under such circumstances, suit being one for declaration and substantial rights of the parties are at stake, it is just and necessary for the documents to be summoned and sent for comparison to establish the claims of the petitioners that the sale deed dated 18.05.1979 and

25.07.1979 are null and void.

8. Per contra, Mr.Sachin Vinayak, learned counsel for the 1^st respondent states that the claims made in the affidavit are self-serving and without merit. According to the learned counsel, the father of the plaintiffs' Murugesan was never sick and his eyesight was also good and absolutely not a scrap of evidence has been produced at the time of trial in this regard. He would also refer to the cross-examination of PW1 who has admitted that his father was of good health till 1993. He would also state that, PW1 has also admitted the signature of his father and if really the valuable property has been knocked off by impersonation of fraud and forgery as alleged by the revision petitioners, there would have at least been a police complaint at the earliest instance. He would f