Madras High Court
Meenakshiammal And Ors. vs Gopalakannan And Ors. on 25 June, 2004
Equivalent citations: AIR2004MAD444, 2004(3)CTC481, (2004)3MLJ396, AIR 2004 MADRAS 444, (2004) 3 MAD LJ 396, (2004) 22 ALLINDCAS 623 (MAD), (2004) 3 CTC 481 (MAD)
Author: P. Sathasivam
Bench: P. Sathasivam
ORDER P. Sathasivam, J.
1. Plaintiffs 2 to 8 in O.S. No.796 of 1992 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thiruvallur are the revision petitioners. Originally, one A.K. Subramania Mudaliar filed the said suit for a declaration of his right and title over the suit property and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and supporters from in any way interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit property. Pending suit, the plaintiff died. His wife, sons and daughters were brought on record as his legal representatives and shown as plaintiffs 2 to 9 so as to the pursue the suit. When the suit was taken up for trial, the impleaded plaintiffs filed a petition for marking of Documents 1 to 16 enclosed along with the said petition on 20.10.2000. The said request was objected to by the first defendant on the ground that those Documents, viz. 1 to 16 were secured subsequent to the filing of the suit and cannot have any bearing on the suit claim.
2. It is seen that P.W.1 was examined on the side of the plaintiffs on 13.10.2000 and on that day, Exs.A.1 to A.7 were marked and the matter was adjourned to 20.10.2000 for continuation. On the next hearing day, when the documents, viz. patta and kist receipts, were sought to be marked, the same was objected to by the defendants. The learned District Munsif, accepting the objection raised by the defendants, after holding that the documents sought to be marked were obtained latter and relate to the period subsequent to the filing of the suit, refused to grant permission to mark the same on the side of the plaintiffs, which necessitated the plaintiffs to approach this Court by way of the present revision.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that A.K. Subramania Mudaliar, the person who filed the said suit at the first instance (since deceased), himself has produced various documents including the partition deed, kist receipts, chitta extract and adangal extract, along with the plaint. Learned counsel claims that consequent to the death of the plaintiff, plaintiffs 2 to 9 were brought on record as his legal representatives and the patta which stood in the name of A.K. Subramania Mudaliar was got changed in their favour and they are paying the kist for the subsequent years. According to the learned counsel, those documents are relevant and are required in order to establish the suit claim.
4. No doubt, learned counsel for the contesting respondent, viz. the first respondent, would submit that in view of the fact that, the documents sought to be marked were obtained subsequent to the filing of the suit and since the said documents have nothing to do with the claim made in the suit, the learned trial Judge is right in rejecting the claim of the petitioners.
5. It will be useful to refer to Order 8, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which reads as under :
"3. Rejection of irrelevant or inadmissible documents. -- The Court may at any stage of the suit reject any document which it considers irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible recording the grounds of such rejection."
As per the said provision, there is no dispute that it would be open to the Court, at any stage of the suit, to reject any document if it considers it irrelevant or inadmissible, by recording reasons for such rejection. In the present case, I have already referred to the fact that when the original plaintiff A.K. Subramania Mudaliar filed the suit seeking a declaration and permanent injunction, he also filed certain documents, viz. the partition deed, kist receipts, chitta and adangal extracts, along with the plaint. It is also not in dispute that pending the suit, the said plaintiff died and the petitioners herein were brought on record by an order of the Court as his legal representatives. It is the claim of the petitioners that after the death of the said A.K. Subramania Mudaliar on application, they got the patta changed in their favour from the authority concerned and they had also paid kist for the properties and continued to pay the same. Therefore, the documents in question are very much relevant insofar as the plaintiffs are concerned so as to enable them to pursue the suit and get a relief in their favour.
6. Considering the details furnished and the nature of the documents sought to be marked, I am of the view that the learned District Munsif is not justified in refusing to mark those documents even at the threshold. In the light of the nature of the relief prayed for by the original plaintiff and the claim/stand taken by the present plaintiffs, who are none else than, the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff, it cannot be said at this stage that those documents are irrelevant or inadmissible, that too without marking the same.
7. It is not the case of the petitioners that the documents sought to be marked were secured even prior to the filing of the suit when, the original plaintiff was alive. As said earlier, it is their claim that after the death of the plaintiff A.K. Subramania Mudaliar, on application, they got the name transferred and continued to pay the tax in respect of the suit property. In such circumstances, it is but proper for the Court, to mark those documents, and consider the correctness or validity of the same at the appropriate time while considering the claim of both the parties. I am satisfied that the Court below has committed an error in refusing to receive those documents and mark them on the side of the plaintiffs.
8. It is made clear that merely because the plaintiffs have produced certain documents and got them marked as exhibits, it cannot be construed that they have established their claim, right or title. It is for the Court to consider whether those documents are relevant or are helpful to the parties and decide the same one way or the other by giving adequate reasons. The said recourse has not been adopted by the Court below in the case on hand. I am of the view that the petitioners/plaintiffs cannot be stifled and their right cannot be crippled at the threshold itself by holding that the documents that they seek to mark are inadmissible or not maintainable.
9. In the light of what is stated above, the order of the learned District Munsif, Thiruvallur dated 7.11.2000 made in O.S. No.796 of 1992 is hereby set aside. The learned District Munsif is directed to proceed with the suit by allowing the petitioners/plaintiffs to mark those documents and render a decision in the suit, one way or the other, on merits and in accordance with law. Inasmuch as the suit is of the year 1992 the learned District Munsif is directed to dispose of the same, on or before 30th September. 2004. The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P. No. 599 of 2001 is closed.