A No. 1916 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE A No. 1916 of 2026 AND TOS NO. 50 OF 2006 1. Ravanammal And 4 Others New No.154,Old No.28, Kalliamman Koil Street, Virugambakkam, Chennai-92. 2. K.Seetharaman S/o.M. Kesava Reddiar, No.,121/106, Veerappan Kulakkarai St, Nolambur Village Post,tindivanam Tk,villupuram Dist 3. P.Balakrishna Reddy S/o.P.Venkata Subba Reddy, 27.2.1190, Balaji Nagar, Gowda Hostel Centre, Nellore Dist.Andresh Pradesh. 4. P.Venkataramana Reddy s/o.P.Venkata Subba Reddy, Pentapadu, Village, Palicherla Vari Palem Post, Chillakur Mandal, Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh-524 002. 5. P.Ramachandra Reddy H.No.5.8-13A/8/29, Chankyapuri Colony, Ganga Reddy, Medak District, Telungana State, ..Applicant(s) Vs B.K.Anandha Kumar 5/18, Balambal Nagar, Virugambakkam, Chennai-92 ..Respondent(s) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A No. 1916 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 4 Prayer in A No. 1916 of 2026: To direct the Respondent to produce the original Partition Deed dated 29/03/1990 registered as Doc.No.2899/1990 for comparison of Signature and Thumb Impression of Kanniah Reddy, with that of Exhibit P1 and P3 in T.O.S.No.50 of 2006. A No. 1916 of 2026 For Applicant(s): M/S.S.Parthasarathy Rakhesh Varshan Rr S.Govardhan For Respondent(s): Mr.Ravichandran Sundaresan Order This application has been filed by the defendants seeking a direction to the respondent/plaintiff to produce the original Partition Deed dated 29.03.1990, registered as Document No.2899 of 1990, for comparison of the signature and thumb impression of late A.Kanniah Reddy with those found in the Will and Codicil forming the subject matter of the suit. 2. The applicants contend that the earlier attempt to obtain a forensic opinion was unsuccessful and that O.S.A.No.45 of 2024 was allowed on the ground that comparison could not be undertaken with photocopies, while granting liberty to proceed upon production of original contemporaneous documents. The applicants have merely asserted that the original Partition Deed is with the respondent. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A No. 1916 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 4 3. The respondent has filed a counter specifically stating that he was not a party to the Partition Deed, has no proprietary interest therein and that the original deed is neither in his custody nor in his possession or control. It is further contended that any direction for its production would be futile and incapable of compliance. 4. A direction for production of a document can be issued only when it is shown that the document is in the possession or power of the party against whom the direction is sought. Except for a bald assertion, the applicants have not placed any material to establish that the original Partition Deed is in the custody or control of the respondent. The liberty stated to have been granted in O.S.A.No.45 of 2024 to produce original contemporaneous documents cannot be construed as imposing an obligation upon the respondent to produce a document not in his possession. 6. In such circumstances, no effective direction can be issued against the respondent. Accordingly, A.No.1916 of 2026 is dismissed. No costs. 28-07-2026 JRS Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Neutral citation: Yes/No Speaking order/Non speaking order https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A No. 1916 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 4 DR.A.D.MARIA CLETE J. JRS A No. 1916 of 2026 AND TOS NO. 50 OF 2006 28-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis