- (1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court by which the judgment of the learned Single judge was set aside and the writ appeal was allowed.
(2.) Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: Respondent No.4 in CMP No.35930 of 1998 in O.P. No.12701 of 1998 was the 4th respondent in writ petition also. According to the respondent No.1 he was the tenant of a building called "Jaya building" Main Road, Kollam. The tenancy was given by one Durairaja Reddiar by executing an agreement of lease dated 6.1.1994. This lease deed enabled him to make alterations in the building. Accordingly he effected some alterations in the building. When it was found that the alterations were effected he received from the Kollam Municipality an order directing him to demolish the structure which according to the Municipality was unauthorized. Against the order of the Municipality respondent No.1 approached the Government. The Government issued an order dated 22.6.1998 which was annexed as Ext.P5 to the writ petition, directing the respondent No.1 to submit an application to the local authority seeking regularization of the additional structure made by him. Rugmini Ammal, the first respondent in the Writ Appeal filed a writ petition. The contention raised by her was that there was no lease agreement and that the construction was unauthorized. It was stated that the construction cannot be legalized on other grounds.
(3.) Respondent No.1 filed a counter-affidavit. Along with counter-affidavit photocopy of the agreement of lease dated 6.1.1994 was annexed. Thereafter Rugmini Ammal filed CMP No.35930 of 1998. The contentions taken in the CMP was that the purported agreement of lease is a forged document. It was further stated that she sought the opinion of Professor B.B. Kashyap, a renowned handwriting and finger print expert. The signatures in the purported lease agreement, Exh. R4(a) was compared with the admitted signatures of Durairaj Reddiar in Ext. P7. The expert gave his opinion, the copy of which was produced as Exh.P18. According to it the signatures in Exh.R4(a) did not tally with the admitted signatures. Hence the handwriting expert was of the opinion that the five disputed signatures were not written by the writer of the admitted signatures.;