Madras High Court
V.Jeyaraj vs K.V.Murugesan on 10 August, 2023
C.R.P.(MD).No.480 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 10.08.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.480 of 2019
and
C.M.P(MD) No.2420 of 2019
1. V.Jeyaraj
2. J.Chitra ... Petitioners/Respondents/Plaintiffs
-vs-
1. K.V.Murugesan
2. M.Susila ... Respondents/Respondents
Defendants 1and 2
3. R.Paulpandi
4. A.Nizar Ibrahim
5. M.Maruthupandian
6. M.Rajmohan ... Respondents/Respondents/
Defendants 3 to 6
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order dated 29.01.2019
made in I.A.No.222 of 2018 in O.S.No.221 of 2010 on the file of the I
Additional District Judge, Madurai.
For Petitioners : Mr.M.V.Venkataseshan
For Respondents : Mr.J.Barathan – for R1 and R2
: Mr.M.R.Murugesan – for R6
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD).No.480 of 2019
ORDER
The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal
order dated 29.01.2019 made in I.A.No.222 of 2018 in O.S.No.221 of 2010
on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Madurai.
2. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs and the respondents herein
are the defendants before the Court below.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per the
litigative status before the trial Court.
4. Heard both sides.
5. The short facts which are to be decided in the instant Civil Revision
Petition are that whether the family arrangement dated 06.08.2003 can be
received as a document. It appears that the defendants have moved an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD).No.480 of 2019
application under Order 13 Rule 8 of C.P.C to receive five documents. There
are 28 documents in the list and the five alone were objected. The
respondents have expressed their objection in respect of family arrangement
dated 06.08.2003 on the ground that the document has not been registered
and has not been sufficiently stamped.
6. It is imperative to mention that in the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court reported in 2001 (3) SCC 1 (Shantilal Panchal Vs. State of
Gujarat and another), it has been categorically held that unless there is an
issue in respect of the stamp duty violation all other objection can only be
adjudicated at the time of disposal of the suit. Here, what the petitioners want
is only to receive the document as evidence. Therefore, such receipt of the
documents will in no way affect the rights of the defendants' objection in
respect of the stamp duty violation and the registration.
7. Therefore, this Court finds no infirmity in the order passed by the
learned trial judge. This Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, it is
made clear that the respondents herein are having right to object the
documents on the ground of stamp duty as well as the registration at the time
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD).No.480 of 2019
of marking. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
10.08.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
ebsi
To
1. The I Additional District Judge,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD).No.480 of 2019
C.KUMARAPPAN,J.
ebsi
C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.480 of 2019
10.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
