Madras HC Remands Land Dispute, Giving Defendants Another Chance To Establish Deceased Mother’s Disputed Signatures

Meenakshiammal acquired land measuring 1 acre and 21 cents and executed a power of attorney in favour of the first defendant, Gajendran.

The defendants relied also on a sale receipt, Ex.B2, and claimed that Gajendran was authorised to execute a sale deed in favour of the second defendant.

The plaintiffs, Meenakshiammal’s heirs, disputed the receipt’s genuineness and contended that the power of attorney ceased upon her death in 1994.

The trial court decreed the suit, and the first appellate court affirmed that decree.

The appellants said they had sought comparison of the disputed signatures but that their application was dismissed; the High Court noted that the first appellate court’s observation that no such steps had been taken was contrary to the record.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction in a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

It applied the procedural principle that a party should have an effective opportunity to establish a disputed document’s genuineness where the record shows that an earlier attempt to obtain comparison was made but not considered on the stated basis.

The Court directed that comparison be undertaken subject to applicable rules of evidence and procedure, and clarified that res judicata would not, by itself, bar consideration of the application in the circumstances, particularly as the original of Ex.B5 was stated to be available.

No specific precedent or further statutory provision was cited.

The first appellate court had observed that the defendants had taken no steps to prove the disputed signature, but the record showed that they had filed an application seeking comparison.

The High Court also noted the trial court’s finding that a thumb impression was available in Ex.A4 and that the appellants had been left without an effective opportunity after their application was dismissed and the related revision was closed.

It therefore considered a limited remand appropriate: the appellate court was to consider the original Ex.B5 and Ex.B2 for comparison, allow the deceased’s legal heirs to participate, and decide the genuineness of the signatures and the consequential issues concerning the power of attorney and other documents on the evidence.

The appellate court was directed to complete the exercise within five months of receiving the order.

The documents filed with the miscellaneous petitions were to be transmitted to that court, and the original documents were to be returned to the appellants in accordance with the orders allowing the petitions.