Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1298 (MAD)

Vandu Muthriar v. Samanna

2001-11-02

A.K.RAJAN

body2001
Judgment : 1. Suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.3000 towards part-share in the profit and Rs.900 towards part lease amount. 2. The suit has been filed by the power of attorney agent of the respondent/plaintiff. The lower Court dismissed the suit, but the first Appellate Court decreed the suit as prayed for. The lower court disbelieved Ex.A. 1 and held that it is a forged document. But the first Appellate Court compared the appellant’s signature with the admitted signatures in other document and concluded that the signature in Ex.A.1 is genuine and therefore, decreed the suit. 3. Thesubstantial questions of law are as follows: (1) Whether the lower appellate Court was right in reversing the decree of the trial Court by relying on Ex.A-1 which has been found to be not a genuine document by the trial Court ? (2) Whether the lower appellate Court ought to have held that the respondent is estopped from claiming the appellant to be posses-sion by virtue of h is admission in O.S.No.137 of 1984 wherein he claimed recovery of possession of the land from a third party, Mani? (3) Whether the lower appellate Court was right in admitting Ex.A.1 which is inadmissible in evidence?. 4. The first Appellate Court is also a Court of facts and therefore, the first Appellate Court compared the signature of the appellant/defendant in Ex.A.1 with the admitted signatures found in other documents independently and therefore, the first question is answered in the affirmative. Therefore, Ex.A.1 is genuine. Once Ex..A.1 is found to be genuine, the conclusion arrived at by the first Appellate Court is that Ex.A.1 is found to be valid and hence the lower Appellate Court decreed the suit as prayed for. No other point was argued by the counsel for the appellant herein. Therefore, this Second Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 5. Norepresentation was made on behalf of the respondents. 6. In view of the answer given to the substantial question of law No.1, no answer need be given to the substantial question of law Nos. 2 and 3. 7. In the result, this Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs.