← Library
Madras High CourtCRP/348/2018dismissed

K. Vasantha v. Veeralakshmi

2018-02-05Honourable Mr Justice D. Krishnakumar6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 05.02.2018

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR CRP (PD) No. 348 of 2018 and CMP. No.1848 of 2018 K.Vasantha .. Petitioner Vs

1. Veeralakshmi

2. A.Ravichandran

3. Kannaiya Chettiar .. Respondents PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 14.03.2017 in I.A.No.113 of 2017 in O.S.No.124 of 2009 on the file of the Additional Sub Court at Puducherry.

For Petitioner :Mr.J.Suresh

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 14.03.2017 in I.A.No.113 of 2017 in O.S.No.124 of 2009 on the file of the Additional Sub Court at Puducherry.

2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the first respondent has filed an I.A. No.113 of 2017 under Order 26 Rule 10-B r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to compare the disputed signature in Exhibit A3 along with the admitted signature of the petitioner in Exhibit A2. Without considering the case of the petitioner, the Court below has allowed the said application. Therefore, the present Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the first respondent has filed the suit in O.S. No.124 of 2009 before the learned Additional Sub Judge, Puducherry for declaration to declare the documents, power of attorney executed by the petitioner as null and void and subsequent sale deed executed by the petitioner in favour of the second respondent.

4.When the first respondent has filed the suit in O.S. No. 124 of 2009 for the aforesaid declaration, it is her duty to prove the pleadings raised in the suit. In the earlier occasion, this Court has held in the case

of P.Stanley Buck Vs. D.Govindaraj reported in (2009) 7 MLJ 908 and observed as follows:

"26. In Thiruvengadam Pillai Vs. Navaneethammal and another, 2008 (4) SCC 530: (2008) 2 MLJ 1115, the issue before the Supreme Court was regarding the observation made by the First Appellate Court about the failure on the part of the Defendants to prove that her signature was forged. By concurring with the views of the High Court, in setting aside the findings of the trial Court, the Supreme Court held thus at p.1124 of MLJ:- "17. The trial court had analysed the evidence properly and had dismissed the suit by giving cogent reasons. The first Appellate Court reversed it by wrongly placing onus on the Defendants.

Its observation that when the execution of an unregistered document put forth by the plaintiff was denied by the Defendants, it was for the Defendants to establish that the document was forged or concocted, is not sound proposition. The first Appellate Court proceeded on the basis that it is for the party who asserts something to prove that thing; and as the Defendants alleged that the agreement was forged, it was for them to prove it.

party who propounds the document will have to prove it. In this case the plaintiff came to court alleging that the first defendant had executed an agreement of sale in his favour. The first defendant having denied it, the burden was on the plaintiff to prove that the first Defendant had executed the agreement and not on the first defendant to prove the negative. The issues also placed the burden on the plaintiff to prove the document to be true. No doubt, the plaintiff attempted to discharge his burden by examining himself as also scribe and one of the attesting witnesses...."

27. In P.Sood & Co., (Manufacturing) represented by its Partner, Krishna Kumar Sood Vs. Peerchand Misrimalji Bhansali, Prop, Meena Metals, (2005) 2 MLJ 603: (2005) 3 CTC 12, Division Bench of this Court opined that when the defendant denied the Signature in a particular document which is very much relied on by the plaintiff, it is for the plaintiff to take steps to ascertain the genuineness of the disputed signature by sending the document to hand writing expert."

5. In the light of the above facts and decision cited supra, it is for the first respondent/plaintiff to prove the execution of the document. Therefore, the aforesaid application filed by the first respondent is to compare the disputed signature in Ex.A3 along with the admitted signature of the petitioner in Ex.A2, is proved the genuineness of the document. It is for the plaintiff to prove the genuineness of the disputed document by sending the handwriting expert. It is open to the petitioner to raise objection, if any, at the time of Trial in the suit. Hence, there is no warrants to interfere with the order passed by the Court below.

6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. 05.02.2018 Index: Yes/ No Internet:Yes/No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order rkp

D. KRISHNAKUMAR J., rkp To The learned Additional Sub Judge, Puducherry.

CRP (PD) No. 348 of 2018 CMP. No.1848 of 2018 05.02.2018