Madras High Court
Chandra vs Revathy on 5 January, 2021
CRP.(PD).No.2308 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.01.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
C.R.P.(PD).No.2308 of 2015
and
MP.No.1 of 2015
1.Chandra
2.Krishnamurthy ..Petitioners
Vs.
Revathy ..Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India,
praying to set aside the fair and final order of the Principal District Munsif
Court, Mayiladuturai, in I.A.No.40 of 2015 in O.S.No.249 of 2013 dated
12.03.2015, in so far as it is against the petitioner is concerned and allow the
said IA in toto.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Sounthar
For Respondent : No appearance
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is directed as against the fair and decreetal
order in I.A.No.40 of 2015 in O.S.No.249 of 2013 dated 12.03.2015 on the file
of the learned Principal District Munsif, Mayiladuturai thereby partly allowing
the petition filed by the petitioners herein.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.(PD).No.2308 of 2015
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioners are the defendants and the respondent is the plaintiff, who had
filed a suit for injunction. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property
belong to a temple and her father-in-law was a tenant. The respondent
claimed that her father-in-law transferred his tenancy rights in her favour and
as such she has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
3. He further submitted that her father-in-law transferred his tenancy
rights in favour of the 2nd petitioner after receipt of adequate consideration.
He also executed a lease deed to that effect on 24.05.1997. In fact her
husband also executed documents in respect of the portion of the suit property
surrendering her tenancy rights in favour of the 2nd petitioner herein dated
22.05.1998. The another portion of the properties tenancy right was also
transferred in favour of the 2nd petitioner by the document dated 31.01.1998.
In fact all the documents have been categorically mentioned in the written
statement and the entire property has been in possession and enjoyment of
the petitioners even prior to the documents referred in the written statement.
4. At the time of filing of the written statement, the petitioners have
not filed those documents since those documents were not traced out. After
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.(PD).No.2308 of 2015
filing the written statement those documents were traced out and filed an
application to receive those documents and to mark the same before the trial
court. He further submitted that it can be ordered to receive subject to
proof, admissibility, evidenciary value and objection of the respondent herein.
In support of his contention he also relied upon the judgments in S.Mohammad
Ali Vs. Basheer Ahmed reported in 2001 (2) CTC 391 and Bondar Singh and
others Vs. Nihal Singh and others reported in 2003 (4) SCC 161.
5. Heard Mr.S.Sounthar, learned counsel for the petitioners. Though
notice was served to the sole respondent and her name has been printed in the
cause list, no one appeared on behalf of the respondent before this Court in
person or through pleader.
6. The respondent is the plaintiff and filed a suit for injunction. The
petitioners are defendants 1 and 2 in the suit. While filing the written
statement they categorically mentioned the documents which were sought to
be received before the trial court, but, the petitioners did not file those
documents for the reason that they were not found out. After tracing out
those documents, the petitioners filed an application for reception of those
documents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.(PD).No.2308 of 2015
7. The trial court partly allowed the application thereby received the
document Nos.5 to 9 filed by the petitioners in evidence subject to objection
of the respondent. In respect of document Nos.1 to 4 got dismissed. The trial
court rejected the document Nos.1 to 4 for the reasons that those documents
are insufficiently stamped and un-registered one and as such those could not
be received in evidence.
8. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the
judgment of this court in S.Mohammad Ali Vs. Basheer Ahmed reported in
2001 (2) CTC 391, wherein this court has observed as follows:-
“17. The whole implication of Order 13, Rule 2
of the Civil Procedure Code is to prevent the parties
from producing the documents after a particular
stage, viz., after the settlement of issues or requiring
them to explain 'good cause' for the delay, if any, in
producing the document. In other words, in order to
serve the ends of justice, the production of document
may be accepted by the Court by condoning the delay
in producing the same, depending upon the facts and
circumstances of each case, subject to production of
the same by way of evidence at the relevant time.
But merely permitting the production of documents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.(PD).No.2308 of 2015
cannot be construed that the documents thus
permitted to be produced under Order 13, Rule 2 of
the Civil Procedure Code are automatically admissible
in law.
20. Inability to trace the documents and to
produce the same at the time of presenting the
written statement, in the experience of human
beings, are neither improbable nor strange and if that
be so, such reasons are neither absurd nor capricious.
But, the learned Additional Subordinate Judge while
refusing permission to the petitioner to produce the
documents sought to be produced under Order 13,
Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, in his order
dated 6.10.99, instead of weighing whether the
reason, viz., the revision petitioner could not produce
the documents earlier had driven himself to decide as
to the admissibility of the said documents, which in
my considered opinion, is not permissible for the
Court while exercising the power under Rules 1 and 2
of Order 13 of the Civil Procedure Code, as condoning
of delay in producing the documents belatedly is not
beyond the scope of Order 13, Rule 2 of the Civil
Procedure Code. On the other hand, expressing any
opinion as to the admissibility of the said documents
at that stage is beyond the scope of Order 13, Rule 2
of the Civil Procedure Code.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.(PD).No.2308 of 2015
9. The learned counsel for the petitioners would also rely upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bondar Singh and others Vs. Nihal
Singh and others reported in 2003 (4) SCC 161, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has observed as follows:-
“5. .... The only defence set up against the said
document is that it is unstamped and unregistered and
therefore it cannot convey title to the land in favour of
the plaintiffs. Under the law a sale deed is required to
be properly stamped and registered before it can
convey title to the vendee. However, legal position is
clear law that a document like the sale deed in the
present case, even though not admissible in evidence,
can be looked into for collateral purposes. In the
present case the collateral purpose to be seen is the
nature of possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land.
The sale deed in question at least shows that initial
possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land was not
illegal or unauthorized. .... ”
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India laid down the dictum and the
legal position is clear that the documents like sale deed even though not
admissible in evidence can be looked into for collateral purpose. The
collateral purpose to be seen is the nature of possession and the purpose over
the suit land.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.(PD).No.2308 of 2015
11. The above judgments are squarely applicable to the case on hand.
In the instant case, the trial court rejected the petition for only reason that
the documents are insufficiently stamped and unregistered one. For these
reasons the very reception of documents cannot be denied. It can be received
as evidence only for collateral purpose. The admissibility of those documents
can be seen only at the time of marking those documents. In fact the
petitioners are also ready to cure the defect by filing necessary application for
payment of stamp duty and penalty.
12. In view of the above discussion, the fair and decreetal order in
I.A.No.40 of 2015 in O.S.No.249 of 2013 dated 12.03.2015 on the file of the
learned Principal District Munsif, Mayiladuturai is set aside and this Civil
Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petition is closed. The trial court is directed to receive the
documents 1 to 4 subject to objection of the respondent, proof, admissibility
and evidenciary value.
05.01.2021
dsa
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.(PD).No.2308 of 2015
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
dsa
To
The Principal District Munsif,
Mayiladuturai.
C.R.P.(PD).No.2308 of 2015
05.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
