George v. Raja Saraswathy

ORDER The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.120 of 2018 before the Sub Court, Ambasamudhram. Earlier, the petitioner has filed the suit before the Additional District Munsif Court for bare injunction in O.S.No.86 of 2010. Subsequently, the petitioner amended the relief for declaration and permanent injunction. Consequent to the changes in the relief sought for, the case was transferred from Additional District Munsif, Ambasamudram to Sub Court, Ambasamudram and re-numbered as O.S.No.120 of 2018.

¶2The petitioner claims to have purchased the property from one Kalyaniammal, the mother of the second respondent herein, on the strength of the Power of Attorney purportedly executed by the said kalyaniammal in favour of one Gopi Mathew. The petitioner had also filed I.A.No.98 of 2017 for comparison of the signature in the power of attorney with the signature of Kalyaniammal. The application was allowed on 10.03.2017. It appears that the expert also gave the opinion stating that the signature in the power of attorney was that of the Kalyaniammal, who has now deceased. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed an application in I.A.No.4 of 2022 for comparing the signature in the power of the signature of the second respondent.

¶3The trial Court has dismissed the application on the ground that earlier the petitioner had moved an application in I.A.No.98 of 2017 and there is no merit in the subsequent application in I.A.No.4 of 2022. The relevant portion of the order reads as under: "ix) ,t;thW kDjhuh;/thjpahy; fle;j 2010k; Mz;Nl mry; tof;F jhf;fy; nra;ag;gl;L mjd;gpd;G njhlh;e;J ,JNghd;wnjhU mry; tof;F tprhuizf;F tUk; Nghnjy;yhk; gy;NtW ,ilepiy kDf;fis jhf;fy; nra;J mjd;gb mry; tof;F tprhuizia njhlh;e;J fhyk; flj;jp te;Js;sij tof;F Nfhg;Gfspd; thapyhf mwpaKbfpwJ. ,JNghd;wnjhU kDthdJ Vd; tof;F jhf;fy; nra;Ak; fhyj;jpNyNa kDjhuh;/thjpahy; Vw;fFiwa 12 Mz;Lfs; fopj;J mJTk; ntF ehl;fs; fopj;J tof;F tprhuiz Jtq;ff;$ba epiyapy; kfTk; fhyk; jho;j;jp jhf;fy; nra;ag;gl;Ls;sjw;F kDjhuh;/thjp jug;gpy; vj;jifa epahakhd

Vw;Wf;nfhs;sf;$ba

fhuzq;fs; vJTk; ,y;iy. mit ahTk; kDjhuh; ,k;kDtpid Ntz;Lnkd;Nw mry; tof;fpid NkYk; fhyk; flj;j Ntz;Lk; vd;w Nehf;fj;jpy; ve;jtpj mbg;gil fhuzkpd;wp jhf;fy; nra;Js;shh; vd;gij cWjp nra;Ak;

tpjj;jpNyNa mwpaKbfpwJ.

,e;epiyapy;

,k;kDit mDkjpf;Fk;gl;rj;jpy; vjph;kDjhuh;fSf;F kl;LNk kpFe;j

,og;ig

Vw;gLj;Jk;

vd;gNjhL kl;Lkpd;wp ,Wjp epiyia mile;Jtpl;l mry; tof;if NkYk; fhyjhkjg;gLj;Jk; vd;Nw ePjpkd;wk; fUJfpwJ. mJtifapYk; ,k;kDthdJ Vw;fj;jf;fJ ,y;iy vd;Wk;> KOikahf js;Sgbf;FhpaJ vd;Wk; ,e;ePjpkd;wk;

jPh;khdpf;fpwJ.

mt;thNw

kD gpur;ridf;F tpilf;fhzg;gLfpwJ."

¶4I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶5There is no merit in the present Civil Revision Petition as admittedly the petitioner is claiming a relief for declaration on the strength of the sale deed executed by Gopi Mathew, who obtained the power bearing the signature purportedly of the second respondent by allegedly forging the signature of her mother, late Kalayniammal. The application will serve no purpose and has been rightly rejected by the lower Court.

¶6Therefore, the present Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to move appropriate application for amending the prayer in the light of the facts that have emerged in view of the report of the Advocate Commissioner pursuant to order, dated 10.03.2017 in I.A.No.98 of 2017 provided that the trial is not commenced. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

21.03.2023 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No sn To

1.The Sub Court, Ambasamudharam,

2.The Section Officer Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. C.SARAVANAN

,J.

SN

21.03.2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21.03.2023 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN and C.M.P(MD)No.3534 of 2023 George ...Petitioner/Respondent/ Plaintiff Vs. 1.Raja Saraswathy 2.Devika ... Respondents/Respondents/ Defendants 1 and 3 PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order in I.A.No.4 of 2022 in O.S.No.120 of 2018 passed by Sub Court, Ambasamudharam, dated 22.11.2022. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Balakrishnan