A.Ponnazhagu v. S.Ponnazhagu

JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by C.V.Karthikeyan J.) The Original Side Appeal has been filed to set aside the order dated

14.11.2025 passed in Application No.5168 of 2025 in CS.No.880 of 2016.

¶2The learned counsel for the Caveator is also present before this Court.

¶3The 2nd and 3rd defendants in C.S.No.880 of 2016, which had been instituted, seeking Partition and Separate Possession of the suit schedule property before this Court, have filed the present appeal questioning the order dated 14.11.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Application No.5168 of 2025. The said application had been filed by the appellants herein, seeking to forward a document for comparison of signatures found therein with the admitted signatures of the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs.

¶4It is contended that the said document was put up before P.W.1 and he had denied the same. Thereafter, the said application had been filed before the Page3 of 5 learned Single Judge, who was of the opinion that the application had been filed only to drag on the proceedings and had stated that the document, having not been marked, cannot be sent for forensic examination of the signatures.

¶5The learned counsel for the appellants stated that this Court should examine Paragraph No.5 of the said order and interfere with the same. However, the observations made by the learned Single Judge cannot be stated to lay down any ratio regarding either the veracity, or genuinity or relevancy of the said document. Additionally, the father had also filed a written statement. The appellants herein also filed a counter claim that the settlement deed executed by the father is null and void. All these issues will have to be decided during the course of trial.

¶6We are not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. The learned counsel then stated that liberty should be granted to file a similar application at the appropriate stage. We cannot grant any such liberty. The parties will have to assess the proceedings and take appropriate steps, as and when required, to protect the interest of their clients. Page4 of 5

¶7In fine, the appeal stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (C.V.K.,J.) (K.B.,J.) 25-02-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order kak OSAoNo.o36oofo2026 C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,oJ. AND K.KUMARESHoBABU,oJ. kak OSAoNo.o36oofo2026 25-02-2026 Page5oofo5

Page1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 25-02-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU and C.M.P.No.3856 of 2026 1.Tmt.A.Ponnazhagu D/o Late.S.Azhagupalaniyappan, 2.Miss.Abirami D/o.Late S.Azhagupalaniyappan Both residing at Plot No.243, S.R.P.Colony, 9th Street, Perambur, Chennai-600 082. ..Appellant(s) Vs 1. Tmt.S.Ponnazhagu 2. Mr.S.Annamalai 3. Mr.S.Veera Alias Veerappan 4. Mrs.Meenal ..Respondent(s) Prayer: Original Side Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 9 of Rules of High Court 1994 R/W Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying to set aside the order dated 14.11.2025 passed in Application No.5168 of 2025 in CS.No.880 of 2016. Page2 of 5 For Appellant(s): Mr.M.Nandhakumar For Respondent(s): Mr.B.K.Sreenivasan (For R2 & R3)