Madras High Court
Ramachandran vs Guruvi Reddy on 16 June, 2015
Author: M. Duraiswamy
Bench: M. Duraiswamy
RESERVED ON : 12.06.2015
DELIVERED ON : 16.06.2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 16.06.2015
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY
C.R.P.(PD)No.2196 of 2015 &
M.P.No.1 of 2015
1.Ramachandran
2.Rajappa
3.Sreenappa
4.Madhanagiriappa ... Petitioners
v.
Guruvi Reddy ... Respondent
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the orders of the learned District Munsif of Hosur dated 4.2.2015 in I.A.No.103 of 2014 in O.S.No.35 of 2005.
For Petitioners : Mr.J.Hariharan
for Mr.V.Nicholas
For Respondent : Mr.V.Raghavachari
O R D E R
Heard Mr.V.Nicholas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. Challenging the fair and final order passed in I.A.No.103 of 2014 in O.S.No.35 of 2005 on the file of District Munsif Court, Hosur, the defendants 5 to 8 have filed the above Civil Revision Petition.
3. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.35 of 2005 for declaration of title, permanent injunction, recovery of possession and other reliefs. The defendants filed their written statement and are contesting the suit.
4. In the suit, the defendants 5 to 8, filed an application in I.A.No.103 of 2014 to receive the document, viz., Exchange deed, dated 19.3.1908 and to permit them to mark the exchange deed as exhibit on their side. The defendants filed the document along with the proof affidavit. At the time of marking the said document, the learned counsel for the plaintiff objected to the marking of exchange deed stating that it is an unregistered document. In the affidavit field in support of the application, the defendants have stated that the exchange deed is being marked for collateral purpose to prove their possession since 1908. Further, they have stated that the document may be marked on their side to prove their possession and enjoyment of an extent of 4.76 acres in Survey No.267 since 1908.
5. The plaintiff filed his counter stating that the exchange deed have to be registered under section 17 of the Registration Act and section 49 of the Act is not applicable. Further, the plaintiff has stated that unless the document is duly stamped, there will be a bar against the admissibility of the document.
6. The Trial Court relied upon a judgment of this court passed in A.S.Nos.237 and 274 of 2009 (Lakshmipathi and another v. A.N.Chakrapani Reddiar and others) and another judgment reported in 2001(1)CTC 112 (R.Theivanaiammal and another v. Meenakshiammal and others) found that if a document is required to be registered and if it is unregistered and stamp duty is also not paid, the document cannot be looked into for any other purpose including collateral purpose. The Trial court also found that the application was filed at a belated stage and hence, dismissed the application.
7. Mr.V.Nicholas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the finding of the Trial Court that the exchange deed dated 19.3.1908 cannot be looked into for any purpose cannot stand for the reason that the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this court held that an unregistered document can be looked into for collateral purpose. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon a judgment reported in 2003(4) SCC 161 (Bondar Singh and others v. Nihar Singh and othersThankam) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that even though legal position is clear that a document like a sale deed, which is not admissible in evidence, can be looked into for collateral purposes. In the said judgment the collateral purpose to be seen is the nature of possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land.
8. On the same ratio, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners also relied upon the following judgments :-
(i) 2015(1) CTC 359 (T.Chakrapani v. K.Adimoolam)
(ii) 2012(4) CTC 32 (Singaravelu v. Udhayakumar and another)
(iii) 2006(4) MLJ 706(Muniappa Gounder v. P.Dhanasekaran) (iv 2008(6) CTC 43 Radha Ammal (died and 13 others v. Manthi Reddiar
(v) 2012(2) LW 28 ( A.Municka Mudaliar v. Murugesa Mudaliar and another)
9. Countering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr.Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that an unregistered document can be marked for the collateral purpose only if the collateral transaction does not create, extinguish title, interest, right or interest, etc in the movable property. Further, the learned counsel submitted that a collateral transaction must be a transaction not itself required to be effected by a registered document. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon the following judgments :-
(i) 2008(5) CTC 260 ( K.B. Saha & Sons Pvt. Ltd., v. Development Consultant Ltd.)
(ii) AIR 1957 Mad 472 (K.Panchapagesa Ayyar and another v. K.Kalyanasundaram Ayyar and others)
(iii) 2008(2) CTC 345 ( S.Raghunatha Gounder v. Pattappa Gounder)
(iv) 2010(2) CTC 689 (Kaliya Perumal v. Dhandapani)
(v) 1998(10 CTC 286 ( Arumughachamy Nadar v. Deivanaiammal)
10. In the case on hand, the plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction, recovery of possession and for mesne profits. In the written statement, in paragraph No.5, the defendants have stated that they are in possession of the suit property measuring an extent of 4.76 acres since the exchange deed dated 19.03.1908. Now, in order to establish that they have been in possession of the suit property since 19.03.1908, they seek to mark the document to prove their possession. The purpose for marking the document by the defendants would clearly establish that it is for collateral purpose. They are not claiming any right or title over the suit property by virtue of the exchange deed dated 19.03.1908. Even in the affidavit itself they have stated that the document is being marked only for proving their possession over the suit property. The collateral transaction does not create, extinguish title, interest or right etc., in the suit property.
11. In the judgment reported in 2003(4) SCC 161 (cited supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that even a sale deed that is inadmissible in evidence can be looked into for collateral purpose. As already stated, the collateral purpose in the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court is the nature of possession over the suit land.
12. In the case on hand, though there was exchange of properties on 19.03.1908, the defendants sought to mark the document only for proving their possession over the suit property.
13. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Though there is no dispute with regard to the ratio laid down in the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, the judgments are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
14. In these circumstances, following the judgment reported in 2003(4) SCC 161 (cited supra), I am of the view that the Trial Court should have allowed the application. Therefore, the fair and decreetal order passed I.A.No.103 of 2014 in O.S.No.35 of 2005 are set aside. The application in I.A.No.103 of 2014 in O.S.No.35 of 2005 stands allowed. Since the suit is pending from 2005, I direct the District Munsif Court, Hosur, to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.35 of 2005, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
With these observations, the Civil Revision petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
16.06.2015.
Index : No
Internet : Yes
Rj
To
The District Munsif Court,
Hosur
M. DURAISWAMY,J.,
Rj
Order in
C.R.P.(PD)No.2196 of 2015 &
M.P.No.1 of 2015
16.06.2015