Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9.1. The appellants have preferred the appeal impugning the Judgment and Decree of the Court below rendered in their suit for partition and separate possession and according to them, they were unaware of the legal issues involved in the suit and the school transfer certificate of the first appellant got misplaced and thereby, she preferred a complaint to the S.I. of Police, Uthamapalayam Police Station, who issued a non-traceable certificate to her on 31.07.2011 and they are now able to get the four documents detailed in the petition being marriage invitation card of the second appellant, birth certificate of a female child born to Rajammal and Rathinam Pillai on 20.12.1970, school transfer certificate issued to the first appellant by Mohamed Fathima Girls High School, Uthamapalayam and the certificate issued by S.I.of Police, Uthamapalayam Police Station, which would clinchingly establish the appellants / plaintiffs case that they are the legal heirs of the deceased Rathinam Pillai and hence, according to them, the said documents should be received as additional documents in this appeal and hence, the miscellaneous petition.

10. The averments contained in the counter affidavit of the respondents 2 and 3 / defendants 2 and 3 to the said miscellaneous petition are briefly stated as follows:

10.1. The said miscellaneous petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The documents sought to be produced as additional documents cannot be received in evidence as such. The alleged birth certificate of the second appellant / second plaintiff shows that she was born in Madurai. However, there is no pleading in the plaint that at any point of time, Rajammal and the deceased Rathinam Pillai were residing in Madurai and further the said document being obtained during the pendency of the appeal cannot be received in evidence and it is not admissible in evidence. The marriage invitation card of the second appellant / second plaintiff is inadmissible as in the settlement deed marked as Ex.D1, it has been clearly averred by the deceased Rathinam Pillai that the second plaintiff is the daughter of Rajammal and not his daughter and hence, the said document is also inadmissible. Further, the school transfer certificate of the first appellant / first plaintiff shows the date of birth as 17.03.1962, whereas the school transfer certificate already produced and marked as Ex.D11 shows her date of birth as 04.05.1962 and the name of her parents as Shanmugavel and Rajammal and further in Column No.19, it is shown as the first appellant has studied 6th to 8th Standards during the academic year 1973 ? 1974, which is unbelievable and hence, the said document is also not genuine and inadmissible in evidence. Further, the certificate issued by S.I.of Police, Uthamapalayam Police Station, is not genuine and would not in any manner advance the case of the appellants / plaintiffs and further inasmuch as the ingredients of Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C., have not been complied with and the documents sought to be produced are found to be in contravention of the pleadings and the evidence already adduced, the above said miscellaneous petition is liable to be dismissed.

36. The third document, namely, the school transfer certificate projected by the plaintiffs would only go to show that the date of birth of the first plaintiff is 17.03.1962, whereas her birth certificate had also been marked as Ex.D11, wherein her date of birth is shown as 04.05.1962 and her parents are described as Shanmugavel and Rajammal. On the other hand, the projected document shows that her date of birth is 17.03.1962 and described her father as P.Rathinam and further it is also mentioned that during one academic year, the first plaintiff had studied Standards VI to VIII. This also is found to be against the pleadings already set out in the plaint and evidence of the parties and hence, the same cannot be countenanced and no explanation whatsoever is placed as to why the said document has not been marked in the Court below.