P.Narayanan v. T.Padma @ Pattu And Another
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04-03-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN IN TOS NO. 83 OF 2013 P.Narayanan No.3/2, Ram Colony, Chennai - 600 033 Applicant(s) Vs T.Padma @ Pattu And Another No.6/36, Murugesan Street, Chennai 600 017. and another Respondent(s) For Applicant(s):
Mr. Sameeksha Desikan (For M/s.Rahul Balaji) For Respondent(s):
Mr. C. Jagadish
O R D E R
This application has been filed by the applicant to direct the Tamil Nadu Forensic Laboratory, Chennai, to appoint an expert to scientifically investigate the signature in Page 1 of the Last Will of R. Parthasarathy, the testator, in his will dated 30.08.1999, in compliance with the order dated 30.03.2022 passed in A.No.4303 of 2021 in T.O.S.No.83 of 2013 and pass such other orders accordingly.
2. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that subsequent to the order dated 30.03.2022 in A.No.4303 of 2021, the forensic examination report has given a clear and a categorical finding that the signatures in pages 2 and 3 of the will match with that of the specimen signatures provided, it has failed to even examine the signature contained in Page 1 of the will and has remarked that it was 'not possible to offer opinion.
3.It has been further submitted that as the signature in the 1st page is examined as against the handwriting specimens which are already provided in the original additional documents filed by the Applicant/Plaintiff in the applications in A.Nos.1378 and 4220 of 2022, no prejudice would be caused to the Respondents/Defendants if the request of the Petitioner/Applicant is allowed, in as much as it would only be in furtherance of proving the genuineness of the will, which has already been made out from various other facts, including the forensic examination report.
4.The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the alleged Will said to be dated 30.08.1999 contains 3 pages and the Forensic Expert has rendered an opinion that they are "unable to offer any opinion" with respect to the
signature on the 1st page of the alleged Will. The Applicant cannot dictate the terms on how an Expert Opinion has to be prepared. The prayer in the Application is wholly untenable both in law and on facts.
5.It has been further submitted that the Applicant had sought for a Forensic Examination and by orders of this Hon'ble Court, a Report has been filed. The Applicant cannot now attempt to wriggle out merely because the Report is not favouring the allegations of the Applicant. Hence, the present application is liable to be dismissed.
6. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 7.On perusal of the records, it is seen that in the first instance, in compliance with the order dated 30.03.2022 passed in A.No.4303 of 2021, the Forensic Department has submitted the Report dated 15.05.2023 before this Court after comparing the signature of the alleged Testator holding that they are unable to offer any opinion with respect to the signature on the 1st page of the Alleged Will. Under such circumstances, after the Expert of the Forensic Department expressed the aforesaid view, the applicant has preferred the present application seeking once again to compare
the signature in Page 1 of the last Will by appointing an expert to scientifically investigate the same, it is not acceptable one and liable to be dismissed. Further, it seems that the application is filed only with a view to protract the suit proceedings. 8.In the result, the present application is dismissed. No costs. 04-03-2025 Index:Yes/No Web:Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking lbm To
1. T.Padma @ Pattu And Another No.6/36, Murugesan Street, Chennai 600 017.
2. P.Mythili No.10, 2nd street, vadhyar Thottam, Chennai 600 024.
A.A.NAKKIRAN, J.
lbm IN TOS NO. 83 OF 2013 04-03-2025