Skip to content


Alagudurai Singam Vs. R. Prabhakaran and Others - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai Madurai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberC.R.P(PD)(MD)No. 1925 of 2016 & C.M.P(MD)No. 9137 of 2016
Judge
AppellantAlagudurai Singam
RespondentR. Prabhakaran and Others
Excerpt:
.....in the suit property. the alleged signature in the lease deed is not executed by him and the lease deed filed by the respondent had been falsely concocted by the respondent. therefore the signature in the lease deed is not the signature of the petitioner and also further submitted that the said execution of the lease deed will be proved at the time of trial by producing the witness. however the trial court has allowed the application. against allowing the application, the present crp has been preferred before this court. 5. according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner herein has filed a suit in o.s.no.57 of 2013 for permanent injunction against the respondents herein. the respondents filed the above said application praying to send for the lease deed, dated.....
Judgment:

(Common Prayer: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to set aside the fair and decretal order passed in I.A.No.934 of 2013 in O.S.No.57 of 2013, dated 6.3.2015, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Melur.)

1. This revision has been filed seeking for a direction to set aside the fair and decretal order passed in I.A.No.934 of 2013 in O.S.No.57 of 2013, dated 6.3.2015, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Melur.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and perused the materials available on record.

3.The Petitioner herein filed a suit in O.S.No.57 of 2013 before the District Munsif Court, Melur for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants etc from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff as tenant except under due process of law and for costs. When the suit is pending, the respondents herein filed an application under Order 26 Rule 10-A and Section 151 of C.P.C to send for the lease deed, dated 12.12.2012 filed by the respondent herein in the above suit, for forensic expert to ascertain the signature of the first petitioner/first defendant through an Advocate Commissioner.

4. According to the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the Petitioner is in possession as a lawful tenant. The averments that the petitioner is in collusion with other persons, the respondent has created a forged lease deed as if the first Petitioner had entered into a lease deed on 12.12.2012 for the period of three years by receiving a sum of Rs.10 lakhs as loan and towards interest he allowed the respondent to reside in the suit property. The alleged signature in the lease deed is not executed by him and the lease deed filed by the respondent had been falsely concocted by the respondent. Therefore the signature in the lease deed is not the signature of the petitioner and also further submitted that the said execution of the lease deed will be proved at the time of trial by producing the witness. However the trial Court has allowed the application. Against allowing the application, the present CRP has been preferred before this Court.

5. According to the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the Petitioner herein has filed a suit in O.S.No.57 of 2013 for permanent injunction against the respondents herein. The respondents filed the above said application praying to send for the lease deed, dated 12.12.2012 filed by the respondent herein in the above suit for forensic expert to ascertain the signature of the first petitioner/first defendant through an Advocate Commissioner.. It is seen from the records that the defendants/respondents is residing in the suit property along with his mother and his brother Sasikumar, who is an Advocate had some financial dealings with the respondents/Plaintiffs and others,the first Petitioner's brother Sasikumar could not repay the amount to the respondent/Plaintiff. Due to the aforesaid dispute, according to the respondent in colluding with other persons, the respondent herein has produced the forged lease deed, as if the first Petitioner had entered into a lease deed on 12.12.2012 for the period of three years by receiving a sum of Rs.10 lakhs as loan and towards interest he allowed the respondent to reside in the suit property. According to the respondent, that the said lease deed executed by him is a concocted one. Therefore it requires to be examined by an expert body. At this back-drop the respondent has filed the above application before the Court below. The Court below after considering the facts and circumstances of the case that it is necessary that the signature found in the lease deed has to be sent to the expert body, and the said body can verify the signature whether it is genuine or not. Therefore the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent herein that the genuineness of the lease deed can be established in the suit. The court below has rightly observed that the signature found in the lease deed has to be compared with the signature in admitted documents by an expert body which would enable the trial court to determine the genuineness of the deed and to reduce the number of witnesses to be examined. Further no prejudice would be caused to the Petitioner if the aforesaid document has been sent to the expert body for comparison by Forensic Department with the admitted signatures. Therefore in the light of the above facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of the Court below and thus the revision petition deserves to be dismissed.

6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //