IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 21576 of 2010(O)
1. MAJIDA, D/O.MOHAMMEDANEEFA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. AMBIKANANDHAN S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN, SULAJA
... Respondent
2. AMINA, D/O.MOHAMMED HANEEFA,
3. KAMALAKSHI,D/O.BHARGAVI, KADUKKARA
4. SHANIFA, D/O.MOHAMMED HANEEFA VAKKOM
5. LATHEEFA NIZAR, D/O. MOHAMMED HANEEFA,
For Petitioner :SRI.R.ANILKUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :12/07/2010
O R D E R
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