IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2008 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 35595 of 2008(K) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25/10/2008 IN IA.2498,2599 & 2500/08 IN OS.10/2005 of ADDL.SUB COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER: --------------- BABY LATHA, W/O.K.K.CHENTHAMARAKSHAN 44 YEARS, 901/32,VADAKKANTHARA VILLAGE PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. K.A.MAHALAKSHMI, W/O.BALARAMAN @ BALABADRAN,KUNNUKAD HOUSE, THENKURUSSI AMSOM AND VILLAGE, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. FEDERAL BANK LTD., FEDERAL TOWERS ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. M/S.INTEGRATED ENTERPRISES(INDIA) LTD. 41/427, SEEMA, NEAR ABAD METRO HOTEL, RAJAJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 2/12/2008 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P(C) No.35595 OF 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd December, 2008. JUDGMENT Heard counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is the third defendant in O.S.10/2005 on the file of the Sub Court, Palakkad and is none other than the daughter of the first respondent/plaintiff in the suit. The court below vide Ext.P10 order impugned in this writ petition has directed defendants 1 and 2 in the suit to produce the original share transfer application said to have been submitted by the plaintiff/first respondent herein within fifteen days and directed the third defendant/petitioner herein to appear before the court on next hearing date and furnish sufficient specimen handwriting for the purpose of comparison. 3. It is contended before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is the case of the petitioner that duly signed T.D. Form was delivered over to her by her brother Shri. K.B.Premkrishnan representing that it is signed by her mother with a view to sell her shares and she agreed to purchase the shares and accordingly the share certificates were delivered over to her and the WPC 35595/2008 2 T.D. Form duly signed by her mother, the plaintiff and attested by a competent authority was submitted by her for transfer of shares in her favour and that, therefore, the question is only as to whether the signature in the T.D.Form is that of the mother the plaintiff or not for consideration of which the petitioner-third defendant need not appear before court to furnish her specimen handwriting for the purpose of comparison. Ext.P3 is the written statement filed by the petitioner/third defendant. Para 6 of the said written statement is extracted below to understand the contentions of the third defendant:- ”Till the Book Closure Date/Record Date the holder of share certificates is entitled to transfer the same to any other person or even entrust the certificates for transfer to any of his/her agent with a duly signed T.D.Form. Accordingly the plaintiff has entrusted her Share Certificates for the sale of the same to her son and Agent Mr. K.B.Premkrishnan, this defendant's own brother. The said Mr. Premkrishnan approached this defendant and told the intention of his mother to sell her shares. This defendant willingly agreed to purchase the shares. Accordingly the said premkrishnan handed over the Share Certificates referred to in the plaint with a T.D.Form duly signed by the holder (this defendant's mother) thereof and attested by a competent authority for valid consideration of Rs.30,000/- (Thirty thousand) which was also paid by this defendant to Mr. Premkrishnan. This 3rd defendant is well acquiented with the signature of her mother and had no occasion to WPC 35595/2008 3 suspect her brother also. The plaintiff and her son Premkrishnan are residing together at Thenkurussi and as such this defendant bonafide believed Mr. Premkrishnan and his proper custody of the share certificates and the T.D. Form signed by her mother and duly attested by a competent authority authorised to do so.” 4. Nowhere in the written statement does she say that she filled up the T.D.Forms and submitted for transfer of shares in her name. The question as to whether who filled up the T.D.Forms is also a vital aspect for consideration in the nature of the contentions raised and when the first respondent/plaintiff assails the transfer and contends further that she has not signed in any T.D. Form for the purpose of effecting transfer of her shares, it is not a case where the signature of the first respondent-mother alone was in dispute. The question that would arise for consideration is not only as to whether the signature in the T.D.Forms is that of the first respondent or not. But in the instant case in as much as the petitioner does not admit even that the T.D.Form duly signed by the first respondent and entrusted to her by her brother Shri. K.B.Premkrishnan was being filled up by her. The relevancy of identifying the writings in the T.D.Form also will gain importance while considering the vital issues involved in the suit as to whether WPC 35595/2008 4 the T.D.Forms were being forged and submitted, whether it be by the petitioner or her brother Shri. K.B.Premkrishnan. It was considering all those aspects that the court below has directed the petitioner/third defendant to appear in court and furnish sufficient specimen handwriting for the purpose of comparison. I see no reason to set aside the impugned order. This writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed. K.P.BALACHANDRAN JUDGE jj