JOSEPH ANTOINE MARIE MICHAEL Vs. SELIN MARY
LAWS(MAD)-2014-9-211
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on September 16,2014

Joseph Antoine Marie Michael Appellant
VERSUS
Selin Mary Respondents

JUDGEMENT

R. Mala, J. - (1.) CIVIL Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decretal order dated 17.07.2014 made in I.A. No. 80 of 2013 in O.S. No. 48 of 2007 on the file of the III Additional District Court, Pondicherry.
(2.) AT the time of admission, argument of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is heard in length. The respondent herein as a plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession and also injunction restraining the defendants/revision petitioners not to alienate the suit property stating that the plaintiff purchased the suit property from the defendants, who are in possession as a permissive occupants and since they have not handed over the possession to the plaintiff, the plaintiff revoked the permission and filed the suit. The revision petitioners/defendants filed a written statement and contested the same stating that they admitted the signature in the sale deed. However, it was stated that they have executed the sale deed only for mortgaging the property by depositing the title deeds.
(3.) DURING pendency of the suit, the defendants filed an application in I.A. No. 333 of 2010 for sending the sale agreement to compare with the admitted signature of the defendants, which was dismissed, against which, the revision petition is preferred and the same was allowed and on that basis, I.A. No. 129 of 2012 was filed to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for comparison and furnishing expert's opinion. Advocate Commissioner was appointed and the document has been sent for Forensic and Science Department and the handwriting expert was examined as C.W.1 and during his cross -examination, the defendants came to know that C.W.1 has not followed the procedure while comparing the document, therefore, the defendants came forward with the application in I.A. No. 80 of 2013 for superseding the report in Ex.X1 and to depute another handwriting expert for examination of the document. The trial Court, after hearing the objection raised by the plaintiff, dismissed the application, against which, the present revision petition is preferred by the defendants/revision petitioners.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.