A NO. 1212 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 19-03-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU A NO. 1212 of 2025 in C.S.No.91 of 2024 M/s.G.R.THANGAMALIGAL (FIRMS) No.104, Usman Road, T.Nagar, Chennai 600017 Applicant(s) Vs Mrs. KALA SENTHIL AND 2 OTHERS Flat No. C-8, 1st Floor, Gokulam Flats No.13, Rangan Street, (formerly Rangiar Street) T.Nagar, Chennai - 600 017 and 2 Others Respondent(s) For Applicant(s): Mr.Sriram For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Venkatavarathan For Mr.T.Paranthaman (For R1 and R2) ORDER This application has been filed by the applicant/plaintiff to appoint an Advocate Commissioner and direct him to send the disputed signature and admitted signature of the said B.Kannan to the Tamil Nadu Forensic Science Department, Mylapore and to submit the genuiness report. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2) Heard Mr.M.Sriram, learned counsel for the applicant/plaintiff submits that the two suits have been filed for the relief of Specific Performance for execution of Sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of two flats Flat No.C-7 and Flat No.C-8 respectively. He submits that the third respondent/defendant and his brother Mr.B.Kannan who were the original owners of both the properties agreed to sell the suit schedule property i.e.,Flat No.C-8 to the plaintiff for a sale consideration of Rs.3.00 Crores. He submits that first and second respondents are the wife and son of the third respondent. The third respondent executed settlement deed in their favour and hence, they are impleaded as parties. He further submits that the plaintiff paid the sale consideration to a tune of Rs.2,97,00,000/- on four various dates by way of Cheques after deducting a sum of Rs.3.00/- Lakhs as TDS. He further contends that the said payments were acknowledged by Mr.B.Kannan vide a receipt dated 05.02.2020. He further contends that the defendants were evasive hence, the plaintiff filed the suit. Further he contends that the defendants denied the signature of B.Kannan in the receipt, in their written statement and stated that the receipt is a fabricated document. But, the signature of B.Kannan, who is the second defendant in receipt dated 06.02.2020 filed in C.S.No.81 of 2024 was not denied by the defendants https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis therein. Hence, it is necessary for the plaintiff to compare the admitted and denied signatures of Mr.B.Kannan to prove the genuiness of the receipt dated 05.02.2020. Therefore, he prays to allow the application. 3) Countering the arguments of the applicant, Mr.R.Venkata Varathan, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the plaintiff alone approached the defendants and not the vice versa. After numerous negotiations, the third defendant agreed to sell the suit property for a sum of Rs.10 crores and not Rs.3 crores. He further contends that the plaintiff paid Rs.3 crores as Advance payment and not as total sale consideration as alleged by the plaintiff. He further submits that Mr.G.Rajendran, Chairman, GRT Group of Business had issued the letter dated 30.12.2021, wherein he specified Rs.2,97,00,000/- was paid as “Advance Payment”. He further contends that the acknowledgement by Mr.B.Kannan, who is the brother of third respondent vide receipt dated 05.02.2020 is absolutely false and devoid of truth. He further submits that Mr.B.Kannan has no legal authority to sign such documents on their behalf. He submits that the above application filed by the plaintiff is highly unwarranted and therefore, the same deserves to be dismissed. He further submits that if this Court would allow this application, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the same to be done with specific indication that is for signature comparison alone. 4) Heard both the counsels for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 5) The case of the applicant is that the applicant/plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of oral agreement to execute a sale deed in favour of suit schedule property. The present application is for comparison of the admitted signature and denied signature of Mr.B.Kannan who is the brother of the third respondent. Mr.B.Kannan allegedly issued a receipt dated 05.02.2020 to acknowledge the payment of Rs.3.00 crores which was denied by the third respondent as a forged document. Therefore, this application was made. Without deciding the issues on merit, this court is inclined to allow the application for comparison of signature in the interest of justice. 6) Accordingly, Ms.E.Sharmila, Enrollment No.1520/2014, Mobile No.7200965274, is appointed as the Advocate Commissioner to take the admitted signature in C.S.No.81 of 2024 and send it along with disputed https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis signature in this suit to the Forensic department and file a report on the genuiness of the signature. The initial remuneration for the Advocate Commissioner is fixed at Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) 7) The learned Advocate Commissioner shall complete the above process within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and file a report to that effect within two (2) weeks thereafter. 8) Accordingly, the above application is ordered and however, there shall be no order as to costs. 9) The Registry is directed to hand over the documents containing the disputed and admitted signatures in a sealed cover to the learned Advocate Commissioner and also issue necessary warrant by 23.04.2025. 19-03-2025 kak To 1. Mrs. KALA SENTHIL AND 2 OTHERS Flat No. C-8, 1st Floor, Gokulam Flats No.13, Rangan Street, (formerly Rangiar Street) T.Nagar, Chennai - 600 017 2. S.Balachandran Flat No. C-8, 1st Floor, Gokulam Flats No.13, Rangan Street, (formerly https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Rangiar Street) T.Nagar, Chennai - 600 017 3. B.Senthil Flat No. C-8, 1st Floor, Gokulam Flats No.13, Rangan Street, (formerly Rangiar Street) T.Nagar, Chennai - 600 017 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis