Madras High Court
K.Sundararaj vs R.Subramaniam on 30 September, 2021
C.R.P.(PD)No.3167 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
C.R.P.(PD)No.3167 of 2017
and C.M.P.No.14828 of 2017
K.Sundararaj ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.R.Subramaniam
2.R.Sellamuthu
3.P.Sellamuthu
4.R.Palanisamy ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 17.08.2017
made in I.A.No.827 of 2017 in O.S.No.218 of 2004 on the file of the
District Munsif Court, Kangeyam.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Parthasarathy Senior Counsel
for Mr.P.Dinesh Kumar
For R1, R3 and R4: Mr.M.Guruprasad
1/7
C.R.P.(PD)No.3167 of 2017
ORDER
(The matter is heard through “Video Conferencing/Hybrid Mode”.)
Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decretal order
dated 17.08.2017 made in I.A.No.827 of 2017 in O.S.No.218 of 2004 on
the file of the District Munsif Court, Kangeyam.
2.The petitioner is plaintiff and respondents are the defendants in
O.S.No.218 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kangeyam
(earlier numbered as O.S.No.185 of 2001 on the file of the Sub Court,
Dharapuram). The petitioner filed the said suit for declaration that Power
of Attorney dated 26.02.2001 registered on the file of the Sub-Registrar's
Office, Vellakovil, in favour of the 2nd respondent is forged and void and
injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the
petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule
property. The respondents filed written statement. After trial, the suit was
decreed by the judgment and decree dated 15.06.2006, against which, the
2nd respondent filed First Appeal in A.S.No.32 of 2006 and the same was
allowed by judgment and decree dated 25.01.2007. Challenging the said
judgment, the petitioner filed Second Appeal in S.A.No.429 of 2007
C.R.P.(PD)No.3167 of 2017
before this Court. This Court set aside both the judgments of the trial
Court as well as the First Appellate Court and remanded the suit for fresh
consideration on merits. The petitioner after remand filed I.A.No.827 of
2017 under Order XXVI Rule 10(B) and Section 151 of C.P.C. read with
Section 45 of Evidence Act, for appointment of Advocate Commissioner
and direct the Advocate Commissioner to bring the documents Exs.X2,
X3 and X4 along with admitted signatures referred in the petition for
expert's opinion.
3.According to the petitioner, the execution of the Power of
Attorney dated 26.02.2001 was by fraud and impersonation.
Subsequently, he was abducted by the respondents and his signatures
were obtained in the document in the Sub-Registrar Office, Vellakovil.
While remanding the case, this Court in the Second Appeal held that the
petitioner has not taken any steps to verify his signatures in Exs.X3 to X5
with handwriting expert. Hence, it is necessary to get expert's opinion.
4.The respondents filed counter affidavit, denied all the averments
C.R.P.(PD)No.3167 of 2017
and stated that thumb impressions in the said documents were verified by
the expert, it was proved that said thumb impressions are that of
petitioner and the same was proved in Crime No.257 of 2001. In view of
the same, there is no necessity to verify the signatures in the said
documents and prayed for dismissal of the said I.A.
5. The learned Judge considering the averments in the affidavit,
counter affidavit and the fact that thumb impressions in the documents
Exs.X2, X3, X4 and X5 were proved to be that of petitioner, held that
the claim of the petitioner to verify the signatures in the said documents
is not acceptable and dismissed the I.A.
6.Against the said fair and decretal order dated 17.08.2017 made in
I.A.No.827 of 2017 in O.S.No.218 of 2004, the petitioner has come out
with the present Civil Revision Petition.
7.The 2nd respondent was set exparte before the trial Court. Notice
C.R.P.(PD)No.3167 of 2017
sent to the 2nd respondent has been returned with an endorsement as
'unclaimed'.
8.Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner as
well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1, 3 and 4 and
perused the entire materials on record.
9.From the materials on record, it is seen that the petitioner has
come out with present application seeking comparison of signatures in
Exs.X2, X3 and X4 with admitted signatures in Exs.A15, A18 and A19.
The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner also contended
that the said application is filed as this Court observed in the judgment in
the Second Appeal that the petitioner has not taken any steps for
verification of the signatures in the documents. From the materials on
record, it is seen that the petitioner has not denied that thumb
impressions in the said documents were verified by the expert and proved
to be that of the petitioner. The petitioner has stated that his signatures in
C.R.P.(PD)No.3167 of 2017
the documents were taken forcibly by abducting him. In view of the said
admission, it is seen that the petitioner has admitted that he signed in the
documents by force of the respondents. In view of the same, it is for the
petitioner to prove that he did not sign in the documents voluntarily and
it was obtained by force. For the above reasons, the petitioner is not
entitled to the relief sought for in the I.A. The learned Judge dismissed
the I.A. by giving cogent and valid reasons. There is no error or
irregularity in the order of the learned Judge warranting interference by
this Court.
10.For the above reasons, the Civil Revision Petition stands
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is
closed.
30.09.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
kj
C.R.P.(PD)No.3167 of 2017
V.M.VELUMANI,J.
Kj
To
The District Munsif
Kangeyam.
C.R.P.(PD)No.3167 of 2017
and C.M.P.No.14828 of 2017
30.09.2021
