A. Panchavarnam vs K.S. Arunachala Nadar

M. Duraiswamy, J.—Challenging the fair and final order passed in I.A.No. 775 of 2010 in O.S.No. 129 of 2009 on the file of Additional District Munsif, Karaikudi, the defendants have filed the above civil revision petition.

The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No. 129 of 2009 to declare the registered sale deed dated 16.07.1979 as invalid and for recovery of possession. The said suit is being contested by the defendants on various grounds. In the said suit, the plaintiff took out an application in I.A.No. 775 of 2010 seeking for appointment of an advocate commissioner to send Ex.B1 original sale deed dated 16.07.1979, Original registered sale deed dated 19.04.1976 and Original registered Will dated 05.10.2001 to the forensic science lab at Chennai for its Expert''s opinion by comparing handwriting as well as thumb impression in Ex.B1, sale deed and Will. The said application was opposed by the defendants on various grounds. The Trial Court after taking into consideration the relief sought for in the suit rightly allowed the application. Since the plaintiff had contended that the sale deed dated 16.07.1979 is a fabricated document, the burden is on the plaintiff to establish the said contention by acceptable evidence.

Taking into consideration the relief sought for in the suit, I am of the view that the present application filed by the plaintiff for comparison of the signature is correct. However, the Trial Court, while allowing the application found that the disputed signature found in Ex.B1 sale deed can be compared with the sale deed dated 19.04.1976 and the original Will dated 05.10.2001. It is settled position that the disputed signature in a document can be compared only with the signature found in the document of the contemporary period. In the case on hand, in so far as sale deed is concerned, it is dated 19.04.1976 and the same can be compared with the disputed signature in Ex.B1, sale deed dated 16.07.1979. Since the Will is of the year 2001, the signature found in the said Will cannot be compared with the sale deed dated 16.07.1979. With this modification, the civil revision petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.

Since the suit is of the year 2009 and according to the respondent, the plaintiff is aged 95 years, I direct the Trial Court to dispose of the suit, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.