IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2009 / 22ND SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 23041 of 2009(O) ---------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14/07/2009 IN IA.376/2009,IA.377/2009 IN OS.14/2008 of MUNSIFF COURT, CHALAKUDY .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. VALSALA, AGED 52, D/O LATE PALLIPPADAN PAPPU, POTTA DESOM, EAST CHALAKUDY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 2. LEELA, AGED 48, D/O.LATE PALLIPPADAN PAPPU, POTTA DESOM, EAST CHALAKUDY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADVS. SMT.BABY NANDHINI SMT.MANJULA NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. VIJAYAN, AGED 60, S/O.LATE PALLIPPADAN PAPPU, POTTA DESOM, EAST CHALAKUDY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 2. INDIRA, AGED 46, D/O.LATE PALLIPPADAN PAPPU, POTTA DESOM, EAST CHALAKUDY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 3. SOBHANA, AGED 44, D/O.LATE PALLIPPADAN PAPPU, POTTA DESOM, EAST CHALAKUDY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 4. PRADEEP, AGED 22, S/O.LATE PALLIPPADAN AMMINI, D/O.LATE PALLIPPADAN PAPPU, POTTA DESOM, EAST CHALAKUDY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C).No. 23041 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of August 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs. i) Call for the records of this case leading to Ext.P4 and P5 and set aside the same. ii) Allow Ext.P2 and P3 application filed by the petitioners before the Munsiff Court, Chalakkudy in O.S No. 14/2008. iii) Pass such other orders which are deem to be just and proper in this case. W.P.(C).No. 23041 OF 2009 Page numbers 2. Petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S No. 14 of 2008 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Chalakkudy. Suit is one for partition, and the respondents are the defendants. Resisting the suit claim, the first defendant in her written statement contended that the father of the parties had executed a will bequeathing the properties in her favour. Pursuant thereto the first defendant had executed a sale deed in favour of her son in respect of the property. Plaintiffs moved applications to send the will to the Forensic Science Laboratory to compare the signature of the testator with his admitted signatures in some other documents. Another petition was filed by the plaintiffs for reopening the evidence. Both petitions were dismissed by the learned Munsiff. Propriety and correctness of those orders are challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. W.P.(C).No. 23041 OF 2009 Page numbers 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find, no notice to the respondents is necessary and it is dispensed with. Evidently the plaintiffs / petitioners disputed the genuineness of the will alleged to have been executed by the father in favour of the first defendant. So much so, the burden to prove the execution of that will rest on the first defendant. It is not the signature in the will of the testator but due execution of that testament that is necessary to satisfy the requirements under Section 68 of the Evidence Act and Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act. Comparison of the signature of the testator with the admitted signatures in other documents of the testator has no significance in considering the execution of the will. Further more it is also seen that the application was moved W.P.(C).No. 23041 OF 2009 Page numbers by the plaintiffs at a belated stage after the filing of the petition. I do not find any impropriety in the orders passed by the learned Munsiff declining the request of the petitioners / plaintiffs to send over the will for forensic examination and also for reopening of the evidence of the case. Writ petition lacks merit, and it is dismissed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv