Madras High Court
Mariappan vs Mariammal on 4 December, 2024
C.R.P.(MD) No.503 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on 19.11.2024
Pronounced on 04 .12.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI
C.R.P.(MD) No.503 of 2022
and
C.M.P.(MD) No.2179 of 2022
Mariappan
S/o.Murugan ... Petitioner
Vs.
Mariammal
W/o.Murugan ... Respondent
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India praying to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 27.09.2021
passed in I.A.No.6 of 2021 in O.S.No.127 of 2013 on the file of the
Subordinate Court, Sankarankovil.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.J.Karthick
For Respondent : Mr.M.Jothibasu
*****
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No. 1 of 12
C.R.P.(MD) No.503 of 2022
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 27.09.2021 passed by the Subordinate Court, Sankarankovil, in I.A.No.6 of 2021 in O.S.No.127 of 2013.
2. The facts of the case are that the suit in O.S.No.127 of 2013 was filed by the respondent/plaintiff for declaration, for recovery of possession, and for a permanent injunction restraining the revision petitioner/defendant from encumbering the suit properties. During the pendency of the suit, the respondent/plaintiff filed I.A.No.6 of 2021 under Section 151 of CPC, to receive the photocopy of the unregistered Lease Deed (xj;jp gj;jpuk;) dated 10.03.2006 and a sworn affidavit/sworn statement (thf;F%yk; vDk; cWjpnkhop Mtzk;) as additional evidence in the above suit.
3. The said application was resisted by the revision petitioner/defendant, who stated that the documents are irrelevant to the dispute in the suit; that the revision petitioner/defendant is unaware of the existence of those documents; that, moreover, P.W.2, through whom the documents are sought to be marked, has no connection with the _______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 2 of 12 C.R.P.(MD) No.503 of 2022 documents; and that the said documents cannot be allowed to be received as additional evidence and marked through P.W.2.
4. The trial court, by the impugned order, allowed the said application, against which the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.
5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant would submit that with regard to the proposed documents, there are no pleadings whatsoever in the plaint; that, moreover, P.W.2 is a third party and not connected with the above documents, and therefore, the same cannot be marked through P.W.2; that the above documents require registration, and therefore, they cannot be received as additional evidence; and that, moreover, the trial court erred in rendering the finding that the revision petitioner/defendant, who examined himself as D.W.1, admitted the execution of the said Lease Deed dated 10.03.2006 during cross- examination, which is incorrect.
6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant would further submit that the xerox copies of the alleged Lease Deed cannot be _______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 3 of 12 C.R.P.(MD) No.503 of 2022 marked in evidence as per Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and hence, the order passed by the trial court warrants interference by this Court; and that considering the unregistered documents would result in a breach of the mandate of Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. To support his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Korukonda Chalapathi and another v. Korukonda Annapurna Sampath Kumar, reported in 2022 (15) SCC 475, in which it has been held that, “This is significant for the reason that the law is not that in every case where a party sets up the plea that the court may look into an unregistered documents to show the nature of the possession that the court would agree to it. The cardinal principle would be whether by allowing the case of the party to consider an unregistered document it would result in the breach of the mandate of the Section 49 of the Registration Act.” He would, therefore, pray for setting aside the impugned order passed by the trial court.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would submit that an unregistered/unstamped document can be marked and relied upon by the party for collateral purposes, and it is well settled that the courts must mark an _______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 4 of 12 C.R.P.(MD) No.503 of 2022 unregistered/unstamped document subject to the objection by the opposite party and should not shut down the evidence at the threshold itself; and that only at the time of final decision, the courts should consider the evidence based on the document and objections by the opposite party and come to a fair conclusion. To support his contention, he relied upon the judgment of this Court in Solai v. Periyakaruppan and others, reported in 2015-1-L.W.134.
8. The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would further submit that the court, while considering the application for admissibility of documentary evidence, if any objection is raised for marking the said document, shall notice such objection and decide the evidential value of the said document at the stage of final judgment, and that unless the document affects the rights of any party in immovable property, it cannot be received as evidence; that in the present case, the revision petitioner/defendant himself accepted the existence of the documents during his cross-examination; that moreover, the evidential value of the above documents can be decided by the court at the time of final judgment, and that hence, there may be no impediment to receiving the above documents in evidence. To support his contention, he relied upon _______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 5 of 12 C.R.P.(MD) No.503 of 2022 the following judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court and this Court:-
i. Bipin Shantilal Panchal Vs. State of Gujarat and another, reported in (2001) 3 SCC 1; and ii. Nachimuthu Vs. Ramanan @ Ramasamy (Died) and others, reported in 2024 (3) CTC 399.
9. The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would further submit that the present suit was filed for declaration of title and recovery of possession; that the revision petitioner/defendant, during his cross- examination, has categorically admitted the execution of the Lease Deed dated 10.03.2006 and its contents; that, hence, the respondent/plaintiff filed the application in I.A.No.5 of 2020 for receiving additional documents through P.W.2, which was allowed by the trial court; that since the originals of the Lease Deed dated 10.03.2006 and the sworn affidavit/sworn statement are under the custody of the revision petitioner/defendant, the respondent/plaintiff filed the present application in I.A.No.6 of 2021 for receiving the xerox copies of the same as additional evidence; and that the trial court has rightly allowed the said application, which warrants no interference. _______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 6 of 12 C.R.P.(MD) No.503 of 2022
10. Heard on both sides. Records perused.
11.The suit in O.S. No. 127 of 2013 was filed by the respondent/plaintiff for a declaration of title, recovery of possession, and for a permanent injunction restraining the revision petitioner/defendant from encumbering the suit properties. During the pendency of the suit, the respondent/plaintiff filed an application in I.A.No.6 of 2021 to receive additional documents, namely the photocopy of the Lease Deed dated 10.03.2006 and the sworn affidavit/statement, on the ground that the revision petitioner/defendant had admitted the execution of the said Lease Deed dated 10.03.2006 during his cross-examination. In such circumstances, the trial court, by the impugned order dated 27.09.2021, allowed the said application, which is now under challenge before this Court.
12. The contention of the revision petitioner/defendant is that the said documents are not in his custody, and the proposed documents intended to be marked are unregistered photocopies of the same, which cannot be permitted to be marked. In the impugned order dated 27.09.2021, the trial court observed as follows:
_______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 7 of 12 C.R.P.(MD) No.503 of 2022 “9.kDjhuu; jdJ kDtpy;> ,e;j vjpu;kDjhuuhd gp.rh.1 jdJ FWf;F tprhuizapy; 10.03.2006 Njjpa xj;jp gj;jpuj;jpy; jhDk; xU jug;gpdu;
vd;W Mtzq;fs; me;j Vw;gl;lij xg;Gf;
nfhz;Ls;sjhf Fwpg;gpl;Ls;shu;. Mdhy;
vjpu;kDjhuu; jdJ vjpUiuapy; 10.03.2006 Njjpa xj;jp Mtzk; kw;Wk; thf;F%yj;ij gw;wp jdf;F vJTk; njupahJ vd;Wk;> jhd; jug;gpdu; fpilahJ vd;Wk; $wpAs;shu;. mt;thW kDjhuu; jdJ kDtpy; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;sthW 10.03.2006 xj;jp kw;Wk; thf;F%yj;jpid vjpHkDjhuu; jdJ FWf;F tprhuizapy; jhd; jug;gpdu; vd;gij xg;Gf; nfhz;Ls;shuh vd Muha;ifapy;> gp.rh.1 jdJ FWf;F tprhuizapy; “tof;F tPl;il xj;jp thq;fpaJ rk;ke;jkhf vOjg;gl;l gj;jpuk; jhd; vd;dplk; fhl;lg;gLtJ vd;why; rhl;rp Mtzj;ij thq;fp KOikahf gbj;Jg; ghu;j;Jtpl;L rupnad rhl;rpak; mspf;fpwhu;. xj;jpia jpUg;gp jhd; nrhj;jpy; FbapUe;J tUtjhf rhl;rp rhl;rpak; mspf;fpwhu;. Nkw;gb MtzkhdJ rq;fuplkpUe;J ehd; tPl;il xj;jp thq;fpajw;fhf Vw;gl;l Mtzk; vd;why; rupjhd;. me;j Mtzj;jpy; KUfd; Nfl;Fk;nghOJ tPl;il fhyp nra;J RthjPdk; xg;gilg;gjhfj; jhd;
vOjg;gl;Ls;sJ vd;why; rupjhd;. mjpy; nrhy;yg;gl;Ls;s gukrptd; kfd; KUfd; vd;gtu;
jhd; thjp khupak;khspd; fztu; vd;why; rupay;y" vd;W rhl;rpak; mspj;Js;shu;. vdNt gp.rh.1d; rhl;rpaj;jpypUe;Nj kDjhuu; Fwpg;gpLk;
xj;jp Mtzj;jpy; ,e;j vjpu;kDjhuu; xU
jug;gpduhf ,Ue;Js;shu; vd ,e;ePjpkd;wk;
fUJfpwJ.”
13. The trial court, based on the judgment of this Court in The Home Missionary Society of India Vs. Vepery Auxiliary of the Home Missionary Society of India, reported in 2015 (1) CTC 187, permitted the _______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 8 of 12 C.R.P.(MD) No.503 of 2022 respondent/plaintiff to file the xerox copies of the above documents. The relevant portion of the impugned order is extracted hereunder:
“10. kDjhuu; jdJ kDtpy; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s Mtzq;fspd; mry; vjpu;kDjhuupd; trk; cs;sjhy; mjd; efy;fis FwpaPL nra;a mDkjp NfhupAs;shu;. mt;thW efypid FwpaPL nra;a mDkjp mtrpakh? vd Muha;ifapy; ,e;ePjpkd;wk; The Home Missionary Society of India Vs Vepery Auxiliary of the Home Missionary Society of India Dated 07.11.2004 Reported in 2015 (1) CTC 187 vd;w Kd; jPu;g;gpid Rl;bf; fhl;l tpUk;GfpwJ. NkYk;> Nkw;fz;l Kd; jPu;g;gpy; xU jug;gpdu; xU Mtz efypid FwpaPL nra;a tpUk;Gk; gl;rk; ,e;jpa rhl;rpa rl;lk; 65(a)d; fPo;
kD jhf;fy; nra;J mDkjp ngw;W FwpaPL nra;a Ntz;Lnkd;W Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ. NkYk;
kDjhuUk; ,k;kDtpid efypid FwpaPL nra;a jhf;fy; nra;Js;shu;. NkYk;> ,e;jpa rhl;rpa rl;lk; gpupT 65(a)d;fPo; xU efypid FwpaPL nra;Ak; gl;rk; ,e;jpa rhl;rpa rl;lk; gpupT 66d;
fPo; tiuaWf;fg;gl;Ls;s eilKiwapid Nkw;nfhs;s Ntz;Lnkd;W Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ.
NkYk; ,e;jpa rhl;rpa rl;lk; gpupT 66y; xU efypid FwpaPL nra;a xU jug;gpdu; tpUk;Gk;
gl;rk; 65(a)d; mDkjp NfhUtjw;F Kd;du; me;j mry; MtzkhdJ Vjpu; jug;gpdu; trk; ,Uf;Fk;
gl;rk; mij ,e;ePjpkd;wj;jpy; jhf;fy; mwptpg;G toq;fp me;j mwptpg;gpd; gbAk; vjpu; jug;gpdu;
mrypid ePjpkd;wj;jpy;
xg;gilf;ftpy;iynad;why; kl;LNk efypid
FwpaPL nra;a mDkjp mspf;fyhk; vd;W
Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ.”
14. Though the revision petitioner/defendant, in the counter- affidavit, has categorically denied the custody of the above documents, he _______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 9 of 12 C.R.P.(MD) No.503 of 2022 admitted the existence of the said documents during his cross- examination. Moreover, the respondent/plaintiff also issued a notice under Order 12 Rule 8 of the CPC to the revision petitioner/defendant to produce the original documents. However, the revision petitioner/defendant, in his reply notice, denied the custody of the documents. Therefore, the trial court held that the respondent/plaintiff, having complied with the requirements of Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, is permitted to file secondary evidence. The said finding of the trial court cannot be considered perverse.
15. Furthermore, an unregistered or unstamped document can be marked by the parties for collateral purposes. The question of its admissibility is to be decided by the trial court at the time of the final judgment. The court should not shut down the evidence at the threshold itself. The above documents can be marked subject to the objection of the opposite party, and such objections shall be considered at the time of final judgment.
16. The further contention of the revision petitioner/defendant is that the respondent/plaintiff intends to mark the above documents through _______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 10 of 12 C.R.P.(MD) No.503 of 2022 P.W.2, who is not a party to the above documents. Since the revision petitioner/defendant himself admitted the existence of the above documents, they may be marked through P.W.2. As rightly observed by the trial court, the relevancy and validity of the documents can be considered at the time of the final judgment. Therefore, the impugned order under revision does not suffer from any fundamental irregularity or error and warrants no interference by this Court. Accordingly, the impugned order is confirmed.
17. This Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
04.12.2024 Index: Yes/ No Neutral Citation: Yes / No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order JEN Copy To:
The Subordinate Judge, Sankarankovil, Tirunelveli District.
_______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 11 of 12 C.R.P.(MD) No.503 of 2022 K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.
JEN Pre-Delivery Order made in C.R.P.(MD) No.503 of 2022 and C.M.P.(MD) No.2179 of 2022 04.12.2024 _______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 12 of 12