CRP(MD)/389/2024 of S.Shanmugam Vs S.Sellamuthu on 31 August 2026

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decreetal order, dated 03/10/2023 passed in IA No.4 of 2023 in OS No.16 of 2022 by the Principal District Court, Karur.

2. The petitioner is the first defendant in OS No.16 of2022 on the file of the Principal District Court, Karur. The said suit has been filed by the plaintiffs, who are the mortgagees, as against the petitioner and other defendants, seeking recovery of money. The suit relates to a mortgage deed, dated 27/11/2018 for a sum of Rs.75,00,000/-.

3. The petitioner states that he had executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the second respondent/third defendant on 30/08/2018 for the purpose of obtaining a loan in the name of one Sakthivel, son of Muniyappan. According to the petitioner, the said Power of Attorney was executed only for the purpose of obtaining a loan in the name of Sakthivel. Based on the said Power of Attorney, the third respondent namely, K.Subramanian, obtained a loan in the name of Sakthivel. Subsequently, a mortgage deed was executed in favour of one Sakthivel/PW2 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. The said mortgage was valued at Rs.7,00,000/-. Thereafter, the said mortgage deed was cancelled. Again, on the same day, i.e., on 27/11/2018, another mortgage deed was executed in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents 1 and 2 for a sum of Rs.75,00,000/-, and the property was valued at Rs.80,00,000/-. P.W.2- Sakthivel is one of the witnesses to the said mortgage deed.

4. The petitioner further states that a life certificate in his name was enclosed along with the suit mortgage deed and that his signature therein was forged by the parties. He contends that he had not received any consideration under the mortgage deed. In the additional written statement, he has disputed the signature contained in the life certificate, stating that the same is not his signature. The petitioner had also filed another petition seeking a direction to the respondents to produce the original Power of Attorney. Both the petitions were dismissed by the trial Court. The trial Court observed that the original Power of Attorney was with the power agent and, therefore, the respondents could not be directed to produce the same. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the said petitions, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the petitioner has admitted that he had executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the third respondent on 27/11/2018, conferring upon the power agent the authority to execute all types of documents. The power agent had accordingly executed the mortgage deed. However, in order to protract the proceedings, the petitioner has now filed an additional written statement alleging that the signature contained in the life certificate annexed to the mortgage deed is not his signature and that the same has been forged. It is further contended that the original Power of Attorney is with the power agent and not with the respondents. Therefore, according to the respondents, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the petitions and prays for dismissal of the civil revision petition.

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

7. The main contention of the petitioner is that no consideration was paid to him under the mortgage deed, dated 27/11/2018 and that, in order to create an appearance of payment of consideration, a life certificate was obtained by the power agent as though the petitioner had received the mortgage amount, by forging his signature. Therefore, in order to establish the alleged forgery, the petitioner seeks appointment of an Advocate Commissioner and comparison of the disputed signature with his admitted signature by a Forensic Expert.

8. This Court is of the view that, since the petitioner has specifically denied the signature contained in the life certificate and has also disputed the receipt of the mortgage consideration, no prejudice would be caused if the disputed signature is compared with his admitted signature by a Forensic Expert. Such comparison would assist the Court in arriving at a proper conclusion with regard to the genuineness of the disputed signature. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to produce the document namely cancellation deed of General Power of Attorney deed, dated 12/12/2018 containing his admitted signature, for the purpose of comparison with the disputed signature found in the life certificate.

9. Accordingly, the order passed by the trial Court is set aside insofar as the said request is concerned. The petitioner is directed to produce the relevant document before the trial Court. The trial Court shall obtain the admitted signature of the petitioner and send the same, along with the disputed document, to the Forensic Science Laboratory for comparison and obtain the expert opinion within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

10. As far as the production of the original Power of Attorney is concerned, it is not the case of the petitioner that the said document was entrusted to the respondents 1 and 2. On the contrary, he has admitted that he executed the Power of Attorney in favour of the third respondent. He has also not produced any material to establish that the original Power of Attorney is in the custody of respondents 1 and 2. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the request for production of the original Power of Attorney. This Court finds no infirmity in the said finding of the trial Court.

11. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with the above observations and directions. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

31.08.2026 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No er

R.POORNIMA, J. er To,

1. The Principal District Court, Karur.

2. The Section Officer, VR/ER Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

CRP(MD)No.389 of 2024 31/08/2026