Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1973 (MAD)

P. Nagaraj v. K. Rajam

2012-04-19

G.RAJASURIA

body2012
Judgment :- 1. Inveighing the order dated 14.2.2012 passed by the III Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode, in I.A.No.28 of 2011 in A.S.No.89 of 2010, this civil revision petition is focused. 2. A recapitulation and resume of germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this civil revision petition would run thus: The unsuccessful defendants 1 and 3, in the suit filed by the first respondent herein/plaintiff for getting declared some three sale deeds as void, preferred the appeal A.S.No.89 of 2010. During the pendency of the appeal, I.A.No.28 of 2011 was filed for the purpose of getting the purported signature of D1, who is the revision petitioner No.1 herein, examined by an handwriting expert as to its genuineness. Whereupon, it was contested and ultimately, the appellate Court dismissed the said application, as against which, this civil revision petition has been filed on various grounds. 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would develop his arguments, the gist and kernal of the same would run thus: (i) D1, out of tension, erroneously, admitted his purported signature in Ex.A2-the agreement to sell, as though it was his signature, but that was not true. (ii) The entire transaction between the first revision petitioner herein and the deceased Kandasamy-the husband of R1 herein/plaintiff was relating to one other transaction and even the power deed was not intended to be acted upon. (iii) The agreement to sell Ex.A2 ex facie and prima facie would evince and evidence that all was not well with the document and even though Ex.A1-the Power Deed and Ex.A2-the agreement to sell are purported to have emerged on one and the same day, some stamp papers were purported to have been purchased from different source and in fact, in Ex.A2, the stamp papers do not bear the date. (iv) The first appellate Court, without properly appreciating the facts, simply dismissed the application, warranting interference in revision. 4. In a bid to make mincemeat of and torpedo the arguments as put forth and set forth on the side of the revision petitioners, the learned counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff would pilot his arguments, the pith and marrow of the same would run thus: It is D.W.1 (D1) who admitted, his signature, while deposing before the trial Court. 4. In a bid to make mincemeat of and torpedo the arguments as put forth and set forth on the side of the revision petitioners, the learned counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff would pilot his arguments, the pith and marrow of the same would run thus: It is D.W.1 (D1) who admitted, his signature, while deposing before the trial Court. His own witness D.W.3, so to say, the scribe of Ex.A2-the agreement to sell, also candidly and categorically, without mincing words and paving no room for any suspicion, admitted that it was D.W.1(D1), who signed Ex.A2-the agreement to sell. Over and above that, Ex.A1-the Power Deed was not disputed. The purported sales emerged not on the strength of Ex.A2-the agreement to sell, but on the strength of Ex.A1-the Power Deed only. Absolutely there is no perversity or illegality in the order passed by the appellate Court in dismissing the I.A. Accordingly, the learned counsel would pray for dismissing this revision petition. 5. The point for consideration is as to whether the revision petitioners are entitled to get the purported signature of D1 in Ex.A2-the agreement to sell, examined by an handwriting expert in view of the reasons found set out in the grounds of revision. 6. The whole kit and caboodle of the facts and figures as stood evinced and evidenced is that the bone of contention of the defendants is to the effect that in respect of loan transaction alone Ex.A1-the Power Deed was came to be executed by D1 in favour of the deceased Kandasamy and it was not for the purpose of enabling the latter to execute the sale deed in favour of his wife. 7. The first appellate Court appropriately and appositely, legally and properly analysed the available evidence and dismissed the prayer of the revision petitioners for getting the purported signature in E.A2-the agreement to sell, examined by an handwriting expert, warranting no interference in revision. 8. A litigant in the litigative process cannot be allowed to veer round and take a plea quite antithetical to his version in the deposition and if he is allowed to do so, then there would be no certainty in the litigative process. 9. 8. A litigant in the litigative process cannot be allowed to veer round and take a plea quite antithetical to his version in the deposition and if he is allowed to do so, then there would be no certainty in the litigative process. 9. The entire case is not based on Ex.A2-the agreement to sell alone, but the purport of Ex.A1-the admitted registered Power of Attorney also is involved in this case and it is for the appellants before the appellate forum, who are the revision petitioners herein, to canvass their case from the available evidence. If the entire case hinges on Ex.A2-the agreement to sell, then the matter would be slightly different, however, here the three sale deeds are attacked by the first respondent herein/plaintiff not based on Ex.A2. As such, Ex.A2 is only an incidental document in this case, wherefore, I am of the view that the appellate Court could very well decide the case on merits, even without getting the opinion of an expert touching upon the genuineness or otherwise of the purported signature of D1 in Ex.A2. It is for the appellate Court to believe or not to believe, after hearing both sides and appreciating the evidence relating to the contention of D1 to the effect that he erroneously admitted his purported signature in Ex.A2 and that too, with reference to the deposition of D.W.3. These are all pertaining to evaluation of evidence. As such, I do not think that the appellate Court erroneously exercised its jurisdiction in dismissing the IA, warranting interference in revision. 10. In the result, I could see no merit in the revision and accordingly, it is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed.