Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1594 (MAD)

Kuppammal @ Susila v. Ramanujam

2015-03-24

P.R.SHIVAKUMAR

body2015
Judgment :- 1. This revision arises out of an order dated 09.11.2011 passed by the trial court (Subordinate Judge, Panruti) in I.A.No.481 of 2010 in O.S.No.41 of 2008. 2. The arguments advanced by Mr.M.L.Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and by Mr.R.Vasudevan, learned counsel for the respondent are heard. The impugned order and other materials available in the form of typed set of papers are also perused. 3. The revision petitioner is the sole defendant and the respondent is the sole plaintiff. They are not strangers to each other and the respondent herein/plaintiff is none other than the brother-in-law of the revision petitioner/defendant. The suit is one for specific performance based on an agreement for sale dated 05.08.2005 allegedly executed by the revision petitioner/defendant in favour of the respondent/plaintiff for the sale of 2.00 acres of land comprised in new S.No.100/2 of Keelmampattu village, Kadampuliyur Sub Registration District, Cuddalore Registration District. 4. The suit is contested by the revision petitioner/defendant contending that the suit agreement for sale is not genuine and the same is a rank forgery. 5. The parties led evidence and after the evidence on both sides came to be closed and when the suit stood posted for hearing the arguments, the revision petitioner/defendant filed I.A.No.481/2010 for referring the suit agreement for sale dated 05.08.2005 and a sale deed dated 16.06.1994 executed by the petitioner herein/defendant in favour of the respondent/plaintiff in respect of another portion of the very same survey field, for the opinion of a handwriting expert. The said petition was filed in the light of her contention that the sale deed dated 16.06.1994 was executed by her in the name of Kuppammal and thereafter she changed her name and changed her style of signature by adopting the new name of Susila. It is the further contention of the petitioner/defendant that after 1994, she used to sign only as Susila and not as Kuppammal. Since the suit agreement for sale dated 05.08.2005 contains a signature as Kuppammal, the petitioner/defendant wanted the suit agreement for sale and the above sale deed dated 16.06.1994 to be referred to a handwriting expert for opinion as to whether the signatures found in those documents are that of one and the same person or not. 6. Since the suit agreement for sale dated 05.08.2005 contains a signature as Kuppammal, the petitioner/defendant wanted the suit agreement for sale and the above sale deed dated 16.06.1994 to be referred to a handwriting expert for opinion as to whether the signatures found in those documents are that of one and the same person or not. 6. The learned trial judge, after hearing both sides, referring to the deposition of DW1, recorded during cross examination, held that the petitioner herein/defendant did admit that she executed a sale deed signing as Kuppammal in the year 2004 and that therefore, the prayer made by her for sending the document dated 16.06.1994 along with the disputed document dated 05.08.2005 for comparison was not bonafide. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant contends that the only sale deed that was executed by the petitioner in favour of the respondent was the document dated 16.06.1994; that no sale deed was executed by her in favour of the respondent in the year 2004 and that a mistake committed by inadvertence in recording the testimony of DW1, during cross examination, as if the sale deed in favour of the respondent was executed only in the year 2004, was sought to be projected to hold that there was an admission on the part of the petitioner herein that she executed a sale deed, that too in favour of the respondent with a signature as Kuppammal in the year 2004 and hence the present attempt made by the revision petitioner was for the purpose of protracting the case besides having lack of bonafide. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff is not in a position to refute the above said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the only sale deed that was executed by the revision petitioner was the sale deed dated 16.06.1994 registered as document No.1010/1994 on the file of Sub Registrar, Kadampuliyur and that no sale deed was executed by the revision petitioner in favour of the respondent in the year 2004. In addition, if at all any sale deed had been executed by the revision petitioner in favour of the respondent in the year 2004, nothing would prevent him from producing the said document for being compared with the disputed document. In addition, if at all any sale deed had been executed by the revision petitioner in favour of the respondent in the year 2004, nothing would prevent him from producing the said document for being compared with the disputed document. Hence this court is inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that a mistake that crept in while recording the testimony of DW1 was projected wrongly as a ground for rejecting the prayer made by the revision petitioner in I.A.No.481 of 2010. This court is not in a position to approve the correctness and legality of the order passed by the trial court and such an order very well deserves to be interfered with and set aside. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. The order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Panruti dated 09.11.2011 made in I.A.No.481 of 2010 in O.S.No.41 of 2008 is set aside. I.A.No.481 of 2010 shall stand allowed. However, there shall be no order as to cost in the revision. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.