Madras High Court
M.Manikandan vs R.B.Vijayalakshmi on 8 March, 2021
CRP(PD).No.4071 of 2018 and CMP.No.22476 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.03.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
CRP(PD).No.4071 of 2018
and CMP.No.22476 of 2018
M.Manikandan ... Petitioner
Versus
R.B.Vijayalakshmi ... Respondent
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, to set aside the order and decreetal order dated 25.10.2018 passed in
I.A.No.748 of 2018 in O.S.No.157 of 2014 on the file of the I Additional
District Judge at Salem and thus render justice.
For Petitioner : Mr.Govind Chandrasekhar
For Respondent : Ms.Zeenath Begum
****
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the order and
decreetal order dated 25.10.2018 passed in I.A.No.748 of 2018 in O.S.No.157
of 2014 on the file of the I Additional District Judge at Salem.
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP(PD).No.4071 of 2018 and CMP.No.22476 of 2018
2.The revision petitioner herein filed the suit for specific performance
before the court below in O.S.No.157 of 2014. According to the revision
petitioner, the agreement was entered between the petitioner and the respondent
on 12.03.2011, to purchase the suit schedule property for a total sale
consideration of Rs.55,00,000/- (Rupees fifty five lakh only), out of
Rs.55,00,000/- the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- (Rupees thirty
five lakh only) as advance at the time of entering the agreement. The petitioner
has to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakh
only), within three month. The respondent/defendant herein filed the written
statement denying the entire averments in the plaint, and stated that the
agreement dated 12.03.2011 was a forged one. The respondent has filed an
additional written statement on 19.01.2017, whererin she has specifically
pleaded that the signature in the sale agreement is not of her.
3.According to the revision petitioner, he has filed an application to
sent the disputed signatures in the sale agreement for the expert opinion for the
comparison of the signatures in the vakalat and written statement, which were
pertaining to the year 2015.
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP(PD).No.4071 of 2018 and CMP.No.22476 of 2018
4.However, the respondent herein made a strong opposition before the
court below and after hearing both the parties the court below dismissed the
said application stating that the agreement was a forged one and the signature of
the respondent was taken by her son in the disputed document, which was
utilized by the petitioner to file the suit. So it is not a specific denial that the
signature found in the document is not that of the respondent. The respondent's
contention was that the signature put by her in the blank papers and stamp
papers, were utilized to create the suit sale agreement.
5.By referring the Judgment of the court below, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner submitted that in the written statement the
respondent herein disputed the signatures, for the first time, in the sale
agreement. Hence, he has filed the application in I.A.No.748 of 2018, for
sending the signatures found in the sale agreement for expert opinion.
Therefore he contended that the finding of the court below is not correct and the
same is liable to be set aside.
6.Further the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted
that though the admitted signatures are relating to the year 2011, in the present
case, it is not the signatures of the petitioner/plaintiff to prove his own signature,
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP(PD).No.4071 of 2018 and CMP.No.22476 of 2018
but he wanted to prove the signatures of the respondent/defendant with her
subsequent signatures in the vakalat and written statement with that the
signatures in the sale agreement are one and the same. Therefore, there is
nothing wrong to send those signatures in the vakalat and written statement for
comparison with the disputed signatures in the sale agreement and prayed to set
aside the order passed by the court below and allow this Civil Revision Petition.
7.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant
submitted that the respondent/defendant had denied entire averments in the
plaint and also submitted that the signatures in the sale agreement were forged.
Therefore, any request to send the signatures for the expert opinion is
unnecessary, the trial has come to the final stage and the petitioner/plaintiff has
adopted only the delay tactics to postpone the further adjudication of the suit.
Therefore, he contended that there is no illegality in the order passed by the
court below and she prayed for dismissal of the Civil Revision petition.
8.Upon hearing the submissions of both the learned counsel and
perusal of records would show that the petitioner/plaintiff had entered into a
sale agreement with the defendant on 12.03.2011, to purchase the suit schedule
property for a sale consideration of Rs.55,00,000/- (Rupees fifty five lakh only),
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP(PD).No.4071 of 2018 and CMP.No.22476 of 2018
out of Rs.55,00,000/- the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- (Rupees
thirty five lakh only) as advance at the time of entering into the sale agreement
and the petitioner has to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.20,00,000/-
(Rupees twenty lakh only), within three months. As the respondent failed to
execute the sale deed within three months, the petitioner filed the suit for
specific performance. The respondent/defendant herein had filed the written
statement on 05.01.2015, wherein, he has stated that the sale agreement was a
forged one. The respondent/defendant also filed an additional written statement
on 19.01.2017, wherein in the first line she had stated as follows:
“This defendant denies the signatures in the
agreement, and it is forged.”
The above said denial made the petitioner/plaintiff to file the I.A.No.748 of
2018, seeking to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to take the impugned
unregistered sale agreement dated 12.03.2011 to the Additional Director,
(Documents) Department of Forensic Science, to compare the signatures found
in the vakalat and in the written statement of the respondent by an expert.
9.From a perusal of the written statement, prima facie appears that the
respondent/defendant denies the signature in the sale agreement. This would
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP(PD).No.4071 of 2018 and CMP.No.22476 of 2018
have made the plaintiff to file the application for appointment of Advocate
Commissioner to take the signature found in unregister sale agreement to
compare with the signature found in the vakalat and written statement of the
respondent/defendant. However, the Court below without considering all these
aspects has dismissed the application filed by the Revision Petitioner herein.
The Court below held that the Court itself can compare the signature on its own.
No doubt, it can be compared by the Court below by its own. But, it would be
better if the court gets an expert opinion and decide the matter on merits. Hence,
the dismissal of I.A.No.748 of 2018 is suffered with infirmities. Thus, the
decreetal order of Court below is liable to be set aside.
10.Therefore, the order passed by the Court below in I.A.No.748 of
2018 is set aside. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition stands allowed as
prayed for. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition
stands closed.
08.03.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
ah
To
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP(PD).No.4071 of 2018 and CMP.No.22476 of 2018
The I Additional District Judge,
Salem.
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.,
ah/rst
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP(PD).No.4071 of 2018 and CMP.No.22476 of 2018
CRP(PD).No.4071 of 2018
and CMP.No.22476 of 2018
08.03.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
