IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 12TH JULY 2010 / 21ST ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 21576 of 2010(O) -------------------------- OS.14/2006 of MUNSIFF COURT,VARKALA .................... PETITIONER: --------------- MAJIDA, D/O.MOHAMMEDANEEFA, THEKKUMMMURY VEEDU, VAKKOM VILLAGE AND DESOM. BY ADV. SRI.R.ANILKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. AMBIKANANDHAN S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN, SULAJA NIVAS, VAKKOM VILLAGE AND DESOM PIN-695308. 2. AMINA, D/O.MOHAMMED HANEEFA, THEKKUMMURY VEEDU, VAKKOM DESOM AND VILLAGE, PIN-695308. 3. KAMALAKSHI,D/O.BHARGAVI, KADUKKARA VEEDU, KADAKKAVUR VILLAGE, KADAKKAVUR P.O., PIN - 695306. 4. SHANIFA, D/O.MOHAMMED HANEEFA VAKKOM VILLAGE, VAKKOM P.O., PIN - 695308. 5. LATHEEFA NIZAR, D/O. MOHAMMED HANEEFA, PAZHVILA VEEDU, PANGODU, THYKKUTTAM VEEDU, VAKKOM P.O., PIN-695308. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------------- WP(C) No. 21576 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T --------------------- Plaintiff in OS No.14/06 of the Court of learned Munsiff, Varkkala challenges Exhibit P3, order refusing to order comparison of signature/thumb impression of respondent Nos. 2 and 4 by an expert. Case of petitioner/plaintiff is that suit property belonged to her and that respondent No.2 personated herself as respondent No.4 and forging signature of respondent No.4 created document No.1679 of 2004 in favour of respondent No.5 which does not bind petitioner or the suit property. Hence the prayer for cancellation of document No.1679 of 2004. Application was opposed by the contesting parties. Learned Munsiff observed that respondent No. 2 is alleged to have personated respondent No.4 and executed the document but 2 WP(C) No. 21576 of 2010 respondent No.4 has not denied that she executed the impugned document and hence comparison of signature/thump impression of respondent Nos.2 and 4 is not required. According to the learned counsel, such a comparison is essential to prove that document No.1679 of 2004 is fraudulently created. 2. Petitioner has no case that she has been personated by respondent No.2 or any other contesting respondents or that the impugned document has been created forging her signature. On the other hand her case is that, document concerning suit property belonging to her was created by respondent No.2 personating herself as respondent No.4 and the document was created in favor of respondent No.5. If that case of petitioner were true, the document executed by respondent No.2 or 4 as the case may be in favor of respondent No.5 concerning the suit property which allegedly belonged to the 3 WP(C) No. 21576 of 2010 petitioner cannot bind either her or the suit property. She can ignore the said document or seek a declaration as prayed for on showing that property belonged to her and respondent No. 2 or 4 as the case may be, had no right or authority to execute the document concerning that property. Learned Munsiff has also observed that respondent No.4 has not denied execution of document No.1679 of 2004. I therefore, do not find reason to interfere with the impugned order. Writ petition is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE rkc