IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 14TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 23RD BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 3057 of 2010(O) ------------------------- OS.122/2009 of MUN-MAGI COURT, PARAVOOR .................... PETITIONER: --------------- K.CHANDRAN, SON OF RAGHAVAN, AGED 70 YEARS, CHANDRAVILASOM, KOONAYIL CHERRY, PARAVUR, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR SRI.LEO GEORGE SRI.K.P.SUJESH KUMAR RESPONDENT: --------------- * KARUNAKARAN, CHIRAKKARATHAZHAM CHERRY, CHIRAKKARA, PARAVUR, KOLLAM. (DELETED) (* - THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE RESPONDENT SHOWN IN the CAUSE TITEL IS DELETED AND THE SAME SUBSTITUTED AS “KARUNAKARAN, S/o. KRISHNAN, KARUNA VILASAM, CHIRAKKARATHAZHAM CHERRY, CHIRUKKAVU, PARAVUR, KOLLAM” AS PER ORDER DTD. 11-03-2010 IN I.A.No.3541/2010 IN W.P.C.No.3057 OF 2010) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 3057 of 2010 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 : PLAINT IN O.S.No.122/2009 ON THE FILE OF the MUNSIFFS COURT, PARAVUR DTD. 19-06-2009 EXHIBIT P2 : WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONRE IN O.S.nO.122/2009 ON THE FILE OF the MUNSIFFS COURT, PARAVUR DTD 09-12-2009 EXHIBIT P3 : I.A.No.1017 OF 2009IN O.S.No.122/2009 ON THE FILE OF the MUNSIFFS COURT, PARAVUR DTD. 18-08-2009 EXHIBIT P4 : OBJECTION FILED BY the PETITIONER TO EXHIBIT P3 APPLICATION DTD. 19-10-2009 EXHIBIT P5 : ORDER ON I.A.No.1017 OF 2009IN O.S.No.122/2009 ON THE FILE OF the MUNSIFFS COURT, PARAVUR DTD. 18-11-2009. EXHIBIT P6 : ORDER PASSED BY THE MUNSIFFS COURT, PARAVUR IN O.S.No.122/2009 ON THE FILE OF the MUNSIFFS COURT, PARAVUR DTD. 22-12-2009. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL True Copy P.A to Judge THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.C.No.3057 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 14th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner is defendant in O.S.No.122 of 2009 of the court of learned Munsiff, Paravur. That is a suit filed by the respondent for a declaration of his title and possession of the suit property regarding which sale deed No.779 of 1971 dated 15-03-1971 stand in the name of petitioner. The case of respondent is that the said document was allegedly executed at a time when he was in Malaysia in connection with employment and that the document is a result of forgery. Petitioner who is the nephew of respondent claimed that the latter executed the impugned sale deed for valid consideration. Respondent filed I.A.No.1017 of 2009 to summon certain documents from the office of the Sub Registrar concerned for the purpose of sending the same along with the disputed document to the expert for examination. Learned Munsiff has allowed that application as per Ext.P5, order and following that, Ext.P6, order has been passed to send the documents to the FSL for examination and report. Ext.P6, order is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. Though respondent has been served but, there is no W.P.C.No.3057 of 2010 : 2 : response. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that case of respondent being that he was at Malaysia during the time the impugned sale deed was executed, that fact could be proved by producing his passport and hence it is not necessary to send the documents to the expert for examination. If at all the document is sent to the expert, comparison must be with a contemporaneous admitted document. 3. It is true that respondent has a contention that he was abroad during the time document was allegedly executed but, apart from proving that fact, he can also prove that the impugned document does not contain his signature or thumb impression. Since thumb impression/signature in assignment deed No.779 of 1971 is disputed by the respondent learned Munsiff cannot be said to have gone wrong in sending the document to the expert for opinion. 4. Learned counsel points out that sale deed No.3521 of 1970 contains the signature of respondent and if at all the impugned sale deed is sent to the expert, signature/thumb impression in that document has to be compared with the same in sale deed No.3521 of 1970 also as the said document being of the year 1970 will be useful for comparison of the signature/thumb impression in the impugned document. If sale deed No.3521 of 1970 contains the signature/thumb impression of respondent, W.P.C.No.3057 of 2010 : 3 : certainly that document also can be send to the expert for comparison. 5. So far as original document summoned from the office of the Sub Registrar is concerned, learned Munsiff shall issue necessary direction to the expert concerned not to make markings on it as per the circular issued by this court and Rule 130 of the Civil Rules of Practice. Resultantly this writ petition is dismissed but, it is directed that if sale deed No.3521 of 1970 contains signature/thumb impression of respondent the said document also shall be send to the expert for comparison of signature/thumb impression in sale deed No.779 of 1971. Learned Munsiff shall ensure that relevant circulars and Rules of Practice are complied in the matter of making markings in the documents summoned from the office of the Sub Registrar. Necessary instructions in that regard shall be given to the expert. Learned Munsiff shall dispose of the suit untrammeled by any observation contained in this judgment as to the burden of proof. Learned Munsiff shall make every endeavour to get the report at the earliest and dispose of the suit as early as possible. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/- True Copy P.A to Judge