Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 624 (MAD)

Mehrunnissa v. Annammal

2004-04-02

body2004
Judgment : 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by one Mehrunnissa against the order passed by the V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in C.M.P.SR.No. 36709 of 2001 in A.S.No. 39 of 2001 dated 18.9.2001. 2. The said unnumbered petition seems to have been filed by the said Mehrunnissa praying said V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai to send the memo filed on behalf of Annammal for evidencing her appearance before the Court along with the affidavit filed in support of the appeal by the Annammal containing her finger prints for examination by finger print expert and getting his opinion. 3. The V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras rejected that unnumbered petition by observing that another petition viz., C.M.P.No. 431of 2001 has been earlier dismissed after enquiry whereby the said Mehrunnissa sought for a direction from the Court for appearance of Annammal and that subsequently, the said Annammal appeared before the Court on 17.9.2001 with ill health and on identification of the said Annammal by her counsel, a memo was filed and the same was recorded by the Court and that therefore, the unnumbered petition, as such, cannot be entertained at that stage and consequently, rejected the petition since it appears to be for delaying the proceedings at the instance of Mehrunnissa. 4. Now, the counsel appearing for the revision petitioner states that the said Annammal had died even before filing of the appeal viz., A.S.No. 39 of 2001 and there is no possibility for the deceased Annammal to file the above appeal and thereby some impersonation has been made before the Court not only for the purpose of filing the appeal but also by appearing before the Court on 17.9.2001 and filing a memo and at that time of appearance itself, the identity of Annammal was disputed before the Court and that therefore, to verify and set right the matter of question of identity, finger prints have to be sent for examination by finger print expert for his opinion and that without properly appreciating this aspect, V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras has rejected the petition and such rejection only made the petitioner Mehrunnissa to file this civil revision petition and it can be allowed. 5. 5. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent viz., one Esther Rani claiming herself to be the daughter of the said Annammal states that this revision itself is only an attempt to delay the proceedings for the purpose of squatting on the property in dispute and that if really the stand of Mehrunnissa is correct as if the said Annammal died long before filing of A.S.No. 39 of 2001, it is surprising as to how the very same Mehrunnissa has filed the civil revision petition against the very same deceased Annammal and another and that it is more surprising as to how another petition viz., C.M.P.No. 5157 of 2003 is chosen to be filed by the same Mehrunnissa to implead the said Esther Rani as third respondent as legal representative of the deceased Annammal notwithstanding the stand that A.S.No. 39 of 2001 has been filed by somebody through impersonation as if that person is Annammal, who in fact, died even before filing of the said A.S. and that too when Mehrunnissa does not admit the said Esther Rani as the surviving legal heir of the deceased Annammal. Further, the counsel for the said Esther Rani states that at one time, steps taken to add the said Esther Rani as the legal representative of the deceased appellant was objected to by Mehrunnissa before the V Additional Judge, City Civil Court as if she alone is not the legal heir of Annammal and at another time, in the civil revision petition, the same Mehrunnissa files a petition to implead the said Esther Rani as third respondent in the revision petition since Annammal is alleged to have died on 28.5.2002 and Esther Rani is her legal heir. He further states that the said Mehrunnissa takes inconsistent stand before the V Additional Judge, City Civil Court in one way and before this Court for the purpose of this civil revision petition on the other way and that further by obtaining stay of further proceedings before the V Additional Judge, City Civil Court from this Court somehow wants to protract the proceedings and squat on the property and thereby, this revision petition itself deserves to be dismissed as vexatious with ulterior motive of protracting the proceedings. 6. 6. On keen perusal of the rejection order passed by the V Additional Judge, City Civil Court and other attending circumstances, I do not find any merit in this civil revision petition inasmuch as the counsel for the respondent Esther Rani has produced a death certificate of Annammal showing the date of death of the said Annammal as 28.5.2002 i.e., after filing of A.S.No. 39 of 2001 and the said Mehrunnissa is not in a position to produce any such death extract showing that the death of Annammal was long before filing of the A.S. and it is open to the said Mehrunnissa to raise the question of identity and impersonation and date of death of Annammal at appropriate time before the V Additional Judge, City Civil Court by furnishing acceptable and reliable materials in that respect and on such materials, the V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai can consider them. 7. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. The connected C.M.Ps. are also dismissed.