CRP(PD)(MD)No.29 of 2021

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 08.07.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

CRP(PD)(MD)No.29 of 2021

and C.M.P.(MD)No.359 of 2021

1. Sudalai

2. Muppidathi

3. Velmurugan

... Revision Petitioners

versus

Balasubramanian

... Respondent

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution

of India, against the fair and decreetal order dated 13.08.2020 passed in

I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No.47 of 2014 by the Additional District

Munsif, Ambasamuthram.

For Revision Petitioners

: Mr.A.Balakrishnan

For Respondent

: Mr.N.Dilip Kumar

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated

13.08.2020 passed by the learned Additional District Munsif,

1/8

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

CRP(PD)(MD)No.29 of 2021

Ambasamuthram, in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No.47 of 2014.

2. The revision petitioners are defendants in O.S.No.47 of 2014.

The respondent/plaintiff has filed the above suit for bare injunction,

claiming that he is the owner of the property, pursuant to the sale deed

dated 08.08.1990. The defendants have taken a plea that the sale deed

executed in the year 1990 is not correct, since one of the executant,

namely, Samy Nadar, who is the grandfather of the defendants, died in

the year 1988. A copy of the death certificate has also been produced

to that effect. The defendants have also filed an application in I.A.No.1

of 2019 in O.S.No.47 of 2014 to send the documents to the Forensic

Laboratory for comparing the thumb impression of Samy Nadar found

in the mortgage deed dated 31.05.1973 with the thumb impression

found in Ex.A1-Sale deed dated 08.08.1990. The learned trial Judge,

by order dated 13.08.2020, dismissed the application on the ground that

the defendants have not taken any plea for comparing the signature

found in Ex.A1 and taken this plea only for comparing the thump

2/8

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

CRP(PD)(MD)No.29 of 2021

impression found in Ex.A1 and they have not produced any

contemporaneous document for comparing the thump impression.

Aggrieved over the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the defendants/revision

petitioners submits that since there is no contemporaneous document

available with the defendants/revision petitioners, they have produced

the mortgage deed dated 31.05.1973 and therefore, they have confined

the plea with regard to the verification of the thump impression found

in both the documents. By relying upon the death certificate of the

revision petitioners' grandfather Samy Nadar, the learned counsel for

the revision petitioner submits that the said Samy Nadar was one of the

executant of Ex.A1-sale deed dated 08.08.1990 and he died in the year

1988 itself and therefore, it cannot be executed in the year 1990.

Hence, the said application has been filed to compare the thumb

impression found in Ex.A1-sale deed with the thumb impression found

in the mortgage deed dated 31.05.1973. He further submits that both

3/8

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

CRP(PD)(MD)No.29 of 2021

the documents are registered documents and the thumb impression of a

person can never be changed and therefore, it can be verified and

compared. However, the learned trial Judge, without considering the

same, has committed an error in dismissing the said application.

4. The learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent submits that

the defendants/revision petitioners have not disputed the signature of

Samy Nadar in Ex.A1-sale deed dated 08.08.1990, however, they have

requested for comparing the thumb impression of Samy Nadar in

Ex.A1-sale deed with the thumb impression found in the mortgage

deed dated 08.08.1990. It is not known as to who has executed the

mortgage deed. Therefore, it cannot be used for comparing the thumb

impression found in Ex.A1-sale deed dated 08.08.1990. He fur