Madras High Court
Palanichamy(Died) vs Suruliappan on 8 December, 2021
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 18.07.2023
Delivered on : 08.09.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE K. GOVINDARAJAN
THILAKAVADI
C.R.P(MD)No.735 of 2022
and
C.M.P(MD)No.2986 of 2022
Palanichamy(Died)
Raniyammal ... Petitioner/2nd Petitioner/2nd
Defendant
Vs.
Suruliappan ...Respondent/Respondent/Plaintiff
Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 08.12.2021 passed in
I.A.No.624 of 2021 in O.S.No.20 of 2014 on the file of the District Munsif
Court, Uthamapalayam, Theni District by allowing this civil revision
petition.
For Petitioner :Mr.M.Kannan
For Respondent :Mr.S.Saravanakumar
ORDER
This civil revision petition is filed against the fair and decreetal order, dated 08.12.2021 passed in I.A.No.624 of 2021 in O.S.No.20 of 2014 by the District Munsif, Uthamapalayam, Theni District. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2
2.According to the revision petitioner/2nd defendant, the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.20 of 2014 before the District Munsif Court, Uthamapalayam, seeking for the relief of permanent injunction. During the pendency of the said suit, the petitioner/2nd defendant filed an application in I.A.No.624 of 2021 to receive the unregistered sale deed, dated 20.09.1995 to establish the possession of the defendants over the suit property. The Court below dismissed the said application and impounded the document under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, for payment of Stamp Duty. Against which, the present civil revision petition is filed.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that through the unregistered sale deed, possession has to be proved. Therefore, the same can be received in evidence for collateral purpose. The learned counsel further submitted that during the course of trial, the petitioner moved the above application to receive the unregistered sale deed and the same cannot be rejected at the inception. The trial Court ought to have accepted the document and decide its relevancy and reliability based on the evidence let in by the respective parties. The trial Court even if it is an unstamped and unregistered sale deed can very well look into it even if the same is not admissible in evidence to establish the nature of the possession of the party concerned over the suit property. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3
4.To support his contention, he has relied upon the following decisions: (i)In Navinraj-vs-Gnanasekar and others, on 11.08.2015 in C.R.P(MD)No.1084 of 2012.
(ii)In Kamaraj-vs-Manickam, on 15.06.2017 in C.R.P(MD)No.1130 of 2017.
5.On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the proof of possession through unregistered sale deed, cannot be considered as a collateral purpose and admission of unregistered sale deed into evidence is barred under Statute. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court and calls for no interference.
6.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.
7.The suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering from the plaintiff's peaceful possession. The case of the respondent/plaintiff is that he is in possession of the suit property pursuant to the sale deed executed by his father on 06.02.1993. Whereas the contention of the petitioner/2nd defendant https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4 is that on 20.09.1995, the petitioner/second defendant has purchased the suit property through unregistered sale deed executed by the plaintiff's mother, plaintiff and his sister viz., Ponuthai and from then onwards, the petitioner/second defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. Therefore, it has become a necessary to mark the said unregistered sale deed to prove the possession of the petitioner/second defendant in the suit property.
8.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that in the cases of this nature marking unregistered sale deed cannot be restrained at the inception. It is left open to the trial Court to decide its relevancy based on the evidence let in by the respective parties to decide upon the reliability of the said document.
9.Relying upon the judgment cited by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the following judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bondar Singh and others-vs-Nihal Singh and others reported in 2004(1)LW 706 (SC), this Court in several judgments have reiterated the position of law on this point that an unstamped and unregistered sale deed can very well be looked into even if the same is not admissible in evidence, to establish the nature of possession of the party concerned over the suit property.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5
10.With the above observations, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order dated 08.12.2021 passed in I.A.No.624 of 2021 in O.S.No.20 of 2014 by the District Munsif, Uthamapalayam, Theni District, is hereby set aside. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
08.09.2023 NCC:Yes/No Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Ns To
1.The District Munsif Court, Uthamapalayam, Theni District
2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6 K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.
Ns C.R.P(MD)No.735 of 2022 and C.M.P(MD)No.2986 of 2022 08.09.2023 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis