Prabhu Ramakrishn, v. Shyam Kumar Shrivastava (Deceased) 1.Ram Kumar Shrivastava,

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 02.09.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN O.S.A.No. 254 of 2025 and C.M.P.No.18189 of 2025 1.Prabhu Ramakrishn 2.N.Vishal Prasad ...Appellants Vs.

Shyam Kumar Shrivastava (Deceased) 1.Ram Kumar Shrivastava 2.Anita Shrivastava 3.Sangeeta Setpal 4.Rashmi Khare 5.Keerthi Shrivastava 6.Vijay Kumar Varma 7.Ajay Kumar Verma 8.Neeta Shrivastava 9.Sambath Kumar 10.Narayanan 11.Pradeep Kumar 12.Selvdurai 13.Nirmal 1/6

14.R.Rama Krishnan 15.A.Vijaya Kumar 16.Munuswamy 17.A.Baskar 18.D.Lokesh 19.K.Prakash 20.Sub-Registrar, Red Hills, Chennai - 52.

21.A.K.Nageswara Rao 22.Priyanshi Shrivastava 23.Yash Kumar Shrivastava 24.Meeta Shrivastava 25.Harsh Shrivastava 26.Harshita Shrivastava

...Respondents

PRAYER: This Original Side Appeal filed under Order 36 Rule 9 of the Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent praying to set aside the order passed in Original Application No.3053 of 2025 in C.S.No.321 of 2019 dated 14.07.2025 and consequently allow the said application. For Petitioners : Mr.S.Pugaleanthi For Respondents : Mr.A.Palaniappan for RR9 to 19 Mrs.K.Aswini Devi, Addl. Govt. Pleader for R20 2/6

Mrs.N.Radha for R21 RR22 and 23 - not ready in notice.

******

J U D G M E N T

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.) The present Original Side Appeal has been instituted challenging the order dated 14.07.2025 passed in A.No.3053 of 2025 in C.S.No.321 of 2019.

2. The appellants filed the application seeking the relief for an expert opinion by comparing the signatures alleged to have been signed by the respondents in the documents. However, the learned Single Judge made a finding that the respondents 9 to 19 who were present before the Court have unanimously stated that it is they who had executed the subject documents.

3. The act of perjury in filing false documents before Court can raise only if the parties claim that their signature has been forged by someone else to their detriment. Since prima facie the parties have deposed before the Court that they have signed the documents, the application filed by the appellants was dismissed. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the finding as it is in consonance with the established principles. 3/6

4. The other issues raised by the parties can be adjudicated in the Civil Suit. With these observations, this Original Side Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (S.M.S., J.) (C.S.N., J.) 02.09.2025 dsa Internet :Yes/No Index :Yes/No :Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order 4/6

To:

The Sub-Registrar, Red Hills, Chennai - 52.

5/6

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

and C.SARAVANAN, J.

dsa O.S.A.No. 254 of 2025 02.09.2025 6/6