Jayakumar v. Murugan

ORDER Challenging the impugned Order passed by the trial Court in partly allowing the application filed by the plaintiffs for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to send the sale deed wherein the disputed signature of their father was found along with the admitted signatures of their father found in the Earned Leave Register extract for comparison and to report before the Court.

¶2The plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration that the plaintiffs have exclusive right over the suit properties, to direct the defendants to hand over the possession of the suit properties to the plaintiffs and to declare that the sale deed dated 07.02.1980 as null and void. The plaintiffs have filed an application to Page3 of 5 send the sale deed dated 07.02.1980 and the earned leave register extract of the company where the plaintiff's father was employed for comparison of the signature and left hand thumb impression of their father. The trial Court, considering the submissions on either side had appointed an Advocate Commissioner to send the sale deed dated 07.02.1980 to compare the signature of the plaintiffs' father with that of his admitted signature found in Settlement deed dated 22.03.1972, which has been marked as Ex.B.2 in the suit and to obtain report from the forensic laboratory.

¶3The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the signature and thumb impression found in the earned leave register has been filed by the plaintiffs to prove the admitted signature of the plaintiff's father and hence, prayed that the same has to be sent by the Advocate Commissioner for comparison of the signature of their father found in the sale deed dated

07.02.1980.

¶4Admittedly, father of the plaintiff was employed in Kodai RCA, Bangalore. According to the revision petitioner, his father affixed his left hand thumb impression in the company's earned leave register extract, but the same has not considered by the trial Court, where the admitted signature of the plaintiffs' father have been filed by the plaintiffs and the same has to be sent for Page4 of 5 forensic examination, otherwise it would cause irreparable loss and hardship to the petitioner.

¶5Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of and the Advocate Commissioner is directed to take the earned leave register extract of the plaintiff's father Munusamy for the period from 1991 - 1994 from the January to December wherein his left hand thumb impression is said to be found along with sale deed dated 07.02.1980 and the settlement deed dated 22.03.1972 for forensic examination for obtaining report. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 05-03-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order vrc To The Subordinate Judge, Chengam. Page5 of 5

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J. vrc 05-03-2026

Page1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 05-03-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI CRP No. 1083 of 2026 & CMP No.5698 of 2026 Jayakumar S/o Munusamy, 103, Sanjay Gandhi Nagar, Old Paiyappanhalli, MS Nagar, Bangalore - 33, Bangalore. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. Murugan S/o Munusamy, 103, Sanjay Gandhi Nagar, Old Paiyappanhalli, MS Nagar, Bangalore - 33, Bangalore. 2. Pudhuraal W/o.Munusamy 103, Sanjay Gandhi Nagar, Old Paiyappanhalli, MS Nagar, Bangalore - 33, Bangalore. 3. Chinnapappa W/o.Munusamy 103, Sanjay Gandhi Nagar, Old Paiyappanhalli, MS Nagar, Bangalore - 33, Bangalore. 4. Arulkumar S/o.Munusamy 103, Sanjay Gandhi Nagar, Old Paiyappanhalli, MS Nagar, Bangalore - 33, Bangalore. Page2 of 5 5. Boopathy s/o.Poongaan Anwaraabadpettai Village Munnoormangalam Post Chengam Taluk Tiruvannamalai District ..Respondent(s) Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decretal order dt. 08.09.2025 made in IA No.1 of 2023 in OS No.124/2020 on the file of the Sub Court, Chengam, Tiruvannamalai District by allowing the CRP. For Petitioner(s): Mr.Ka.Prabaharan