IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED :18.10.2023

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V. THAMILSELVI

C.R.P.No.3873 of 2023

and

CMP.No.23896 of 2023

---

S.K.S.Subramaniam (deceased)

1. M/s Tiruppur Maligai Merchant's Association,

Represented by its President,

2. M/s Tiruppur Maligai Marchent's Association,

Represented by its present Treasurer,

Venkidupathi

both at ABT Road, Karuvampalayam,

Tiruppur.

... Petitioners

Versus

1. S.K.S.Sivakumar

2. N.Vijayakumar

3. G.Rangaswami

4. R.Karuppuswami

5. R.Kaliammal

6. K.P.Senthilkumar

7. K.Karuppusamy

8. G.Meenakshi

9. Minor G.Arthi @ Kannammal

... Respondents

Represented by Guardian & mother G.Meenakshi

1\9

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

Civil Revision Petition filed Under Article 227 of Constitution of

India, praying to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 11.09.2023

made in I.A.No.593 of 2019 in O.S.No.577 of 2005 on the file of the

Principal District Munsif, Tiruppur.

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Bharath Kumar

For R1

: Mr.J.Antony Jesus

O R D E R

The petitioner has filed this revision to set aside the fair and decreetal

order dated 11.09.2023 made in I.A.No.593 of 2019 in O.S.No.577 of 2005

on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Tiruppur.

2. Challenging the order passed in I.A.No.593 of 2019, defendants 2,

11 and 12 who are the purchasers of the property from the original vendor

Maruthammal, who is the mother of the plaintiff. Before the trial Court, the

revision petitioners filed an application praying the Court to send the Xerox

copy of the Will marked as Ex.B5 to obtain expert opinion to find out the

signature in the Will executed by S.K.Soundappa Chettiar by comparing the

2\9

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

same with Ex.B6 and B7 and to get expert opinion under Section 45 of

Indian Evidence Act. The reason assigned by them was that originally the

Will was under the custody of the plaintiff. Based on the Will, the vendor

Marudammal gave the Power of Attorney to the 1st petitioner, from whom

the 2nd and 3rd petitioners herein namely, D11 and D12 have purchased the

property in the year 1992. The plaintiff filed the suit in the year 1992 for

partition, claiming share in the property including the property which was

said to be purchased by the defendants 11 on 12.09.2002.

3. After issuance of the notice, the defendants filed written statement

denying the plaintiffs' claim in the property and stated that they purchased

the property for valid consideration in the year 1992 itself from one

Subramaniam, who is the Power Agent of Marudammal. Now, before the

trial Court, issues have been framed and the witnesses were examined on the

side of the plaintiff. The suit is posted for the evidence on the side of the

defendants.

3\9

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

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner filed an application

to get expert opinion to compare the signature found in Ex.B5, namely the

Signature of S.K.Soundappa Chettiar and also to compare the signature

found in the contemporary document of the year 1996. Ex.B6 IT Return and

Ex.B7 Resolution passed in the year of 1996 stating that the signatures

found in those documents Ex.B6 and Ex.B7 are that of S.K.Soundappa

Chettiar and to prove Ex,B5, he wants to compare the same by expert

opinion. That application was strongly objected by the plaintiff, since the

suit was filed in the year 2005.

5. The defendants have not taken any steps after filing written

statement to send the document for the expert opinion. After completion of

the trial, they have come forward with ulterior motive, because they have not

produced the original Will, and only xerox copy of the Will is taken into

consideration for expert opinion, and as such, it is not permissible under

law.

4\9

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

6. Considering both sides submissions, the learned trial Judge held

t