V.Santhanam, v. V.Maharajan,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 13.06.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM C.R.P.(MD)No.1033 of 2016 and C.R.P.(MD)No.1034 of 2016 and C.M.P.(MD)No.5163 of 2016 in C.R.P.(MD)No.1033 of 2016 V.Santhanam .. Petitioner/Petitioner/ Plaintiff (in both Revision Petitions) Vs.

1. V. Maharajan

2. V.Gajendran .. Respondents/Respondents/ Defendants (in both Revision Petitions) COMMON PRAYER : Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the Fair and Decreetal order dated 21.03.2016 passed in I.A.Nos.113 and 114 of 2016 in O.S.No.316 of 2013 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Vadipatti and to allow the present Civil Revision Petition.

For Petitioner : Mr. A.Saravanan For Respondents : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai C O M M O N O R D E R These Revision petitions have been filed, challenging the order passed in I.A.Nos.113 and 114 of 2016 in O.S.No.316 of 2013 by the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Vadipatti.

2. The suit in O.S.No.316 of 2016 was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff, to set aside the Partition Deed registered as a document in No.1038 of 1987 before the Sub Registrar Office, Alanganallur, dated 19.06.1987. In the suit, the present

applications have been filed to send the Partition Deed for opinion of an handwriting expert and to send for the documents from the Registrar Office. Both the applications came to be dismissed by the Trial Court. Against that order, these Revision petitions have been filed.

3. Mr.A.Saravanan, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the opinion of the handwriting expert is necessary in this case. However, the Trial Court dismissed the applications holding that these applications have been filed belatedly, to drag on the proceedings, and Ex.A.2 is an unregistered document filed for collateral purpose and therefore, opinion of the handwriting expert opinion is not necessary. It is further submitted that the reasons assigned by the Trial Court cannot be sustained and these Revision petitions have to be allowed.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the daughter of the petitioner, first filed a suit in O.S.No.285 of 2013, against the respondent for permanent injunction contending that she is the absolute owner of the property as per the settlement dated 28.11.2012. The respondent filed a written statement stating that the petitioner is not the absolute owner of the property and the respondent is having a share in the property, as per the Partition Deed dated 19.06.1987. It is further submitted that only after filing of the written statement in the first suit, the petitioner filed the suit questioning the partition registered in the year 1987.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent would further submit that the respondents have filed a separate suit in O.S.No.5 of 2013, to set aside the Settlement Deed executed in favour of the daughter of the petitioner. All the three suits, revolve around the validity and genuineness of the Partition Deed dated 19.06.1987. In two other suits, the entire evidences was over and the cases were posted for arguments. Only to prolong the litigation, the petitioner has filed these applications in O.S.No.316 of 2013 and in this case, the opinion of the handwriting expert is not at all necessary.

6. It is seen from the records that these applications were filed, when the suit was posted for evidence on the side of the defendant. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for respondent that very same issue is involved in two other suits viz., O.S.Nos.285 of 2013 and O.S.No.5 of 2013 and in those suits, the petitioner has not filed any application for opinion of a handwriting expert. The learned Judge considered the entire aspects and dismissed the applications.

7. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the orders impugned and hence, these Civil Revision petitions are dismissed. The documents already marked shall be proved in a manner known to

law and any observation made in the impugned order, shall not be binding to the parties. No costs. The Connected CMP also is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AS) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Vadipatti. +1 cc to M/S.A.Saravanan, Advocate in SR.No. 29938 +1 cc to M/S.G.Prabhu Rajadurai, Advocate in SR.No. 30088 pmu CSL/PEK/29.07.2016 :3p/4c C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1033 & 1034 of 2016 13.06.2016