C.R.P.(PD).Nos.3877 & 3878 of 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 19.11.2021

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI

C.R.P.(PD).Nos.3877 & 3878 of 2016

and

C.M.P.No.19725 of 2016

Maragathamanickam

.. Petitioner

(in both cases)

Vs.

1.P.Thavamani

2.P.Vanitha

3.P.Kalpana

4.Bagiyalakshmi

5.Ramaraj

.. Respondents

(in both cases)

Prayer: These Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Section 115 of C.P.C.,

against the fair and decretal orders dated 13.10.2015 passed in I.A.Nos.24 &

25 of 2015 in A.S.No.8 of 2014 on the file of the Sub Court, Pollachi.

In both cases:

For Petitioner

: Mr.R.Kannan

For RR 1 to 3

: Mr.L.Mouli

For RR 4 & 5

: Mr.C.Veeraraghavan

1/12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(PD).Nos.3877 & 3878 of 2016

C O M M O N O R D E R

(The matter is heard through “Video Conferencing/Hybrid Mode”.)

These Civil Revision Petitions are filed against the fair and decretal

orders dated 13.10.2015 passed in I.A.Nos.24 & 25 of 2015 in A.S.No.8 of

2014 on the file of the Sub Court, Pollachi.

2.The issues involved in both the Civil Revision Petitions are one and

the same and hence, these Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of by this

common order.

3.The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.65 of 2004 on the file of the

District Munsif Court, Pollachi and appellant in A.S.No.8 of 2014 on the file

of the Sub Court, Pollachi. The petitioner filed the said suit against the

respondents for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 25.06.1991

executed by deceased R.Palanisamy, husband of respondents 1 & 4 and father

of respondents 2, 3 & 5. The said suit was dismissed by the judgment and

decree dated 19.12.2013. Against the said judgment and decree, the petitioner

filed First Appeal in A.S.No.8 of 2014. Pending First Appeal, the petitioner

filed the present two applications, I.A.No.24 of 2015 to send the register

maintained by the Sub-Registrar Office, Pollachi dated 14.10.1988 in Book

2/12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(PD).Nos.3877 & 3878 of 2016

No.4, Document No.91/1988 along with disputed signature and I.A.No.25 of

2015 to call for the register maintained by the Sub-Registrar Office, Pollachi

dated 14.10.1988 in Book No.4, Document No.91/1988.

4.According to the petitioner, the deceased R.Palanisamy entered into

agreement of sale dated 25.06.1991 with her to sell his suit property. He made

endorsements with agreement of sale dated 25.06.1991, on 20.09.1991,

15.06.1992, 17.10.1992, 31.07.1993 and 26.10.1993, which were marked as

Exs.A1, A7 to A11 respectively. The deceased R.Palanisamy issued receipt to

the petitioner on the date of agreement of sale, which was marked as Ex.A2.

The respondents have denied the execution portion of agreement of sale by

the deceased R.Palanisamy, Ex.A2 / receipt and also other endorsements in

Exs.A7 to A11. According to petitioner, the Trial Court dismissed the suit on

the ground that petitioner has not taken any steps to obtain expert opinion

with regard to genuineness of Exs.A1, A2, A7 to A11. The learned Trial

Judge has erroneously fixed burden on the petitioner to prove the genuineness

of signature in Ex.A1, instead of placing the burden on the respondents to

prove that signature is not genuine. The deceased R.Palanisamy and his

brother Srinivasan borrowed a sum of Rs.20,000/- from the petitioner on

14.10.1988 and executed promissory note, which was registered on the same

3/12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(PD).Nos.3877 & 3878 of 2016

day before the Sub-Registrar Office, Pollachi and the petitioner has come out

with the present two applications for the relief stated above.

5.The respondents 1 to 3 filed counter affidavits in both the

applications and denied the execution of agreement of sale as well as receipt

and other endorsements. They also denied the fact that the deceased

R.Palanisamy and his brother Srinivasan borrowed money and executed the

document. The docum