Venkatalakshmiah vs Venkaappa and Another

This civil revision petition by the 1st defendant is against the order dated 21-9-1990 in LA. No. 389 of 1990 refusing to send the disputed

signature of the plaintiff in the registered sale deed dated 16-11-1968 to the Handwriting Expert for obtaining his opinion. The suit is for

declaration of the 1st respondent plaintiffs title to the suit properties and for consequential injunction. The 1st defendant father and the 2nd

defendant-son resist the suit on the ground that the 1st defendant purchased the suit property from the plaintiff''s father himself by the above said

sale deed dated 16-11-1968 and in the said deed, the plaintiff is the attestor. While the plaintiff was in the witness box in December, 1989 as

P.W. 1, he denied that he signed the said sale deed as attestor. So, on or about 6-4-1990 before the defendants began to lead their evidence, they

filed the abovesaid I.A. with a view to prove the signature of the plaintiff as attestor in the said deed.

The Court below has dismissed the said LA. relying on my judgment reported in R. Ramaswamy v. Seethammal (1990) 106 Mad LW 15 and

observing that the Court itself can come to a decision on the said disputed signature and that the suit itself is of the year 1984 and in the stage of

examining the witnesses on the side of the defendants and that the trial of the said suit, therefore, would be affected.

But said decision only says that it is not essential that the Handwriting Expert must be examined to prove or disprove a writing and that the

Court is competent to compare the disputed writing with an admitted writing. But that does not mean that in no case, the Court could allow a party

to establish his case by having the disputed handwriting examined by a Handwriting Expert. Further, in the present case, only because the plaintiff

denied his attestation in the deed in question when he was examined in December, 1989, the defendants have come forward with the above said

LA. in April, 1990. So it cannot be said that the application is very much belated, though the suit is of the year 1984. May be the Court also can

do the comparison of the disputed signature with any admitted signature and arrive at a decision in that regard. But, when the defendants choose to

have the benefits of the Handwriting Expert also to prove their case they cannot be prevented unless their attempt is very much belated or with any

ulterior motive. Further, the plaintiff has strangely gone to the extent of deposing that the signatures found in his vakalat and plaint are not his. The

defendants might not have filed the above said sale deed and shown it to P.W. 1 at the time when they put the above-said question to him. But

even in the counter-affidavit to the said I.A. the plaintiff maintains that the attestation therein is not his. The court below also observes that the

defendants could examine the other attestor to the said sale deed. But, it is stated by the learned counsel for the revision petition that the other

attestor is none other than the brother of the plaintiff and he might also sail with the plaintiff.

Notice was ordered in this C.R.P.; and the 1st respondent-plaintiff has been served on or about 29-1-1990 itself. But he has not chosen to

enter appearance. Further, it appears that the other respondent, viz., the 2nd defendant was also served even earlier and he also has not entered

appearance.

In the circumstances, I think the Court below has committed an error of jurisdiction in dismissing the I.A. Therefore, the order of the Court

below is set aside and this civil revision petition is allowed. No costs. The Court below, however, instead of sending the above said document to

the Handwriting Expert, is directed to permit the Handwriting Expert suggested by the petitioner to inspect the above said document in the Court

premises itself in the presence of some responsible officer of the Court and if necessary to permit him to have photographic copies of the document

in the presence of the responsible officer of the Court. In the meantime, the Court is also directed to expedite the further hearing of the suit by

examining the other witnesses of the defendants, so that the trial of the suit of the year 1984 is not unduly prolonged further.

Revision allowed.