The dispute in the suit relates to the expulsion of the petitioner from the Attukaal Bhagavathy Temple Trust. Ext.P10 Gazette Notification reveals that the total number of members in the Board of Trust is 87. The quorum for a meeting of the Board is two-third of the total number of members (87) which comes to about 58. There should be three-fourth majority (¾ x 58 = 42) for a decision to be arrived at in the Board. 2. It is alleged that about 59 members participated in the meeting of the Board held on 7.8.2005. The plaintiff assert that the signatures of 11 members found in the minutes of the meeting are fabricated. Only 4 of the disputed 11 members are now alive and the rest are dead. These 4 members are now available to be examined as witnesses in the case.
3. Only one of the members of the Trust has been examined as PW.2 in addition to the plaintiff as PW.1. The parties are at liberty to adduce oral evidence based on the pleadings in the suit. The court OP (C) No.2235 of 2011 2 below is at liberty to have the signature of the 4 members verified by an expert later. Such a contingency would arise only if there is such a need dependent on the assessment of the entire oral evidence in the suit.
4. I say so since the report of the expert is an opinion evidence under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. The opinion evidence becomes relevant only in the context of other corroborative evidence available in the suit. The petitioner relies on the evidence of PW.2 for the purpose of corroboration. Anyway I leave it open to the court below to adopt a suitable course after the entire oral evidence is recorded.
5. The motion for expert analysis if any made afresh shall be dealt with untrammelled by the order impugned as well as this judgment.
The Original Petition is disposed of.
nj.
Sd/- V.CHITAMBARESH, Judge.