Madras High Court
Velanganni vs Thiruselvam on 28 July, 2023
C.R.P.(MD).No.2552 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 28.07.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.2552 of 2018
and
C.M.P(MD) No.11225 of 2018
1. Velanganni
2. Sagayam
3. Ganaprakasam
4. Sebasthian
5. Velaganni
6. Anthonysamy ... Petitioners/Petitioners/Defendants
-vs-
1. Thiruselvam
2. Dhanaseeli ... Respondents/Respondents/
Plaintiffs
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order dated 12.10.2018
made in I.A.No.797 of 2018 in O.S.No.323 of 2013 on the file of the
Principal District Munsif Court, Manapparai.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD).No.2552 of 2018
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan
For Respondents : No appearance
ORDER
The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order dated 12.10.2018 made in I.A.No.797 of 2018 in O.S.No.323 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Manapparai.
2. The petitioners herein are the defendants before the trial Court.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per the litigative status before the trial Court.
4. According to the petitioners, the respondents/plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration that the schedule property absolutely belongs to the plaintiffs and that the defendants should not disturb their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The suit was resisted by the defendants on 2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(MD).No.2552 of 2018 the ground that they have not executed any sale deed in their favour and that the alleged sale deed is nothing but the document executed for loan transaction.
5. It appears that, when the matter was posted for arguments, the petitioners have filed an application to re-open the plaintiffs' side evidence so as to examine the Sub-Registrar, Manapparai to prove the alleged local practice of executing sale deed, and the resale deed between the borrower and the vendor. The said application was objected by the respondents contending that such examination of Sub-Registrar is no way relevant to the fact in issue and therefore, objected the application for reopening.
6. After hearing either side, the learned trial Judge has dismissed the application on the ground that the prayer sought for to examine the Sub- Registrar so as to produce the sale deed executed between 2000 to 2018 is not relevant to the fact in issue and that the reason assigned by the petitioners is very vague.
3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(MD).No.2552 of 2018
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that in Manaparai area, there is a practice between the borrower and lender that whenever the borrower, borrows loan, would execute sale deed in the name of the vendor, and subsequent to the discharge of loan amount, again the lender would again execute the resale in the name of the borrower. In order to prove such factum, the examination of Sub Registrar is essential. Therefore, he prayed to allow this revision petition.
8. In respect of the respondents, though their names were printed in the cause list, no one appeared on their behalf.
9. This Court has given anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and also perused the records.
10. One and the only reason for reopen of the plaintiffs side evidence, assigned by the petitioners is that to prove the alleged loan transaction, the sale deed and the resale deed transactions which took place in Koodathipatti, Amayapuram Village, Manapparai Taluk between the period 2000 to 2018, is essential and for the said purpose the examination of Sub-Registrar, is 4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(MD).No.2552 of 2018 essential. Hence, a reopen application has been filed. It is pertinent to mention here that the suit is only for the relief of declaration in respect of the two schedule of property. Though the petitioners herein have set up the defence of loan transaction, they could very well prove the loan transaction by examining the other witnesses and producing registration copy of the so called documents.
11. As rightly submitted by the learned trial Judge, the very application calling upon the Sub-Registrar to produce the sale deed between 2000 to 2018 is very much vague, and would only divert the public function of Government functionary to the private litigation which should not be entertained and encouraged. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the order passed by the learned trial Judge is well considered one, and this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned trial Judge.
12. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, in view of the observation made hereinabove for the proof of their case through some other witness, the petitioners are given liberty to file fresh application to re-open and in the event of filing of such application, the learned trial 5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(MD).No.2552 of 2018 Judge shall dispose of the same according to law. Without being influenced by the observation made in the order. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
28.07.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
ebsi
To
1. The Principal District Munsif Court,
Manapparai.
6/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD).No.2552 of 2018
C.KUMARAPPAN,J.
ebsi
C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.2552 of 2018
28.07.2023
7/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis