Madras High Court
Saroja vs M.P.Sulochana on 21 April, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.04.2021
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
C.R.P. (PD) No.15 of 2019
and
C.M.P.No.238 of 2019
1.Saroja
2.Thirumalai
3.Bhavani
4.Vasanthi
5.Bhuvaneswari .. Petitioners/Petitioners/Plaintiff
Vs
1.M.P.Sulochana
2.T.G.Gopinathan
3.Mythili
..Respondents/Respondents/Defendants
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India to set aside the impugned fair and decreetal order dated
11.08.2018 passed in I.A.No.1319 of 2017 in O.S.No.153 of 2009 on the
file of the District Munsif Court, Chengalpattu.
For Petitioner .. Mr.V.M.Venkatramana
For R2 .. Mr.V.Chandra Prabu
For R1 and R3 .. No appearance.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2
ORDER
The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the plaintiffs
in O.S.No.153 of 2009 which is now pending on the file of the District
Munsif Court, Chengalpattu.
2.The said suit had been filed for a declaration that the plaintiffs
are the absolute owner of the suit property and for consequential relief of
permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the
peaceful possession of the plaintiffs and also for a declaration that the
Sale Deed dated 23.10.2008 said to have been executed by the 1st
defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant as null and void and also for
costs.
3.The 2nd defendant is the contesting defendant, as seen from the
relief sought, in view of the fact that he has been the beneficiary of the
Sale Deed dated 23.10.2008 which is sought to be set aside. Written
statement has been filed by him. The issues have been framed. The
parties had been invited to tender evidence and had adduced evidence.
They also marked documents. Their evidence had been tested during
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
cross-examination. Thereafter, the defendants were invited to tender
evidence. DW-1 and DW-2 were examined on behalf of the 2nd
defendant. Finally, DW-3 was examined. DW-3 filed his proof affidavit
by way of chief examination. It would always be a better approach if an
independent witness in examined orally rather than by filing a proof
affidavit because an independent witness is expected to state facts to his
knowledge. Anyway, proof affidavit had been filed and he has also been
cross-examined. All those took place in the year 2017.
4.I do not want to go into deeply on the evidence of DW-3 since
the plaintiffs had filed I.A.No.1319 of 2017 seeking permission to recall
DW-3 after stating that cross-examination had been completed, on the
ground that further questions will have to be put to him. That application
came to be considered by the learned District Munsif, Chengalpet and by
order dated 11.08.2018 the said application was dismissed. Questioning
that particular order the plaintiffs had filed the present Civil Revision
Petition.
5.Heard Mr.V.M.Venkatramana, learned counsel for the revision
petitioners and Mr.V.Chandraprabu, learned counsel for the 2nd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
respondent / 2nd defendant who was the contesting defendant in the trial
court.
6.A perusal of the chief examination of DW-3 would indicate that
he had been examined since he was a witness in a Power of Attorney
document dated 24.05.1996. He was called to speak about such a fact
undertaken by him in the year 2017.
7.I would rather confine myself to observing that the learned
District Munsif, Chengalpet, may analyze the said evidence both in chief
and cross-examination by taking into consideration the particular portion
alone which a witness to a document can speak. The witness to a
document can tender evidence primarily regarding witnessing the
signatures affixed to the documents. If he were speak anything further,
then those facts should be tested in cross-examination.
8.I find that suggestions have also been put with respect to passing
of consideration. The discretion is entirely with the learned District
Munsif, Chengalpet to analyze the said evidence. The said evidence is
only corroborative in nature to be taken in addition to the primary
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
evidence which had been already let in, presumably by the 2nd defendant.
It is those statements which would decide whether the stand taken by the
defendants can be appreciated or should suffer a finding in favour of the
plaintiffs while determining the issues in the suit.
9.The learned District Munsif, Chengalpet, may therefore scan the
evidence and take only the acceptable portions and thereafter pass a
judgment in the issues of the suit. I am confident the learned District
Munsif, Chengalpet, would discharge such obligation to his best efforts.
No further directions are required. It would also work again the interest
of the plaintiffs if the witness were to be recalled after a period of four
years. Naturally he would fill the lacuna and if he were to be put to cross-
examination, he would be thoroughly prepared on the nature of evidence
to be adduced.
10.Therefore I do not think any useful purpose will be served by
inviting DW-3 to graze the witness box once again after a period of four
years. The petitioner herein may move forward in the suit on the basis of
the evidence adduced, primarily on the basis of their evidence to
substantiate declaration of title, to substantiate possession and to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
substantiate the reasons why the sale deed complained should be set
aside.
11.With the above mentioned observations, the Civil Revision
Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected Civil
Miscellaneous Petition is closed. The parties are advised to go back to
the District Munsif Court, Chengalpet and move forward with the suit.
21.04.2021
Internet:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
smv
To
The District Munsif Court,
Chengalpet.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.
smv
C.R.P. (PD) No.15 of 2019
21.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
