IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 9959 of 2008(I)
1. VALSALA MOHANAN, W/O. MOHANAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. VIKRAMAN, S/O. VELUKKUTTY,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.C.A.CHACKO
For Respondent :SRI.C.PRABIN BENNY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :29/05/2008
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
-------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.9959 of 2008
-------------------------------
Dated this the 29th May, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.1039/04, on the file
of Principal Sub Court, Thrissur. Respondent is the first defendant.
The suit is one for partition. Respondent resisted the suit by setting up
a Will. After a notary attested copy of the Will was produced and three
witness examined, I.A.No.2066/2008 was filed by the petitioner to
forward the Notary attested photo copy of the Will to the
Administrative Officer, Security Printing Press of India, Nazik,
Maharashtra, to ascertain the age of the stamp affixed in the notary
attested copy of the Will. Under Ext.P5, it was dismissed. It is
challenged in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India.
2. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner is that as the original Will was not produced and only a
notary attested copy was produced, its genuineness is to be decided,
and so learned Sub Judge should have allowed the application and sent
the document to an expert.
W.P.(C) No.9959/2008
2
3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent
submitted that apart from producing the notary copy of the Will, Sub
Registrar was also examined, and in such circumstances, there is no
illegality in Ext.P5 order.
4. On going through Ext.P5 order, I do not find any
illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned Sub Judge.
The material question is not regarding the genuineness of attested
photo copy of the Will, but whether the Will registered as Document
No.137/93, dated 21.12.93, is the Will executed by the testator. In
such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with Ext.P5
order. Petitioner is entitled to challenge that order along with the final
judgment in the suit, if it goes against him.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE
nj.