T.Theeran vs C.Rathinakumar
2024 Latest Caselaw 15115 Mad

Madras High Court

T.Theeran vs C.Rathinakumar on 5 August, 2024

                                                                                 CRP No.2883 of 2024

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED: 05.08.2024

                                                      CORAM

                                  THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN


                                                CRP No.2883 of 2024
                                             and CMP No.15318 of 2024

                     1.T.Theeran
                     2.T.Vasan                                                .. Petitioners

                                                         -vs-

                     1. C.Rathinakumar
                     2. R.Balamurugan
                     3. C.Murugan
                     4. M.Chellamani
                     5. T.Anbalagan
                     6. Usharani
                     7. Raja
                     M.A.Jayakrishnan(Died)                                   .. Respondents



                     Prayer: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against
                     the fair and decreetal order dated 21.11.2023 made in I.A.No.5 of 2023 in
                     O.S.No.100 of 2011 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court,
                     Kanchipuram.



                     Page 1 of 6



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                      CRP No.2883 of 2024



                                  For Petitioners         :     Mr.T.Sathiyamoorthy

                                  For Respondents         :     Ms.J.Nathiya
                                                                for Mr.M.Ganesh for R-5

                                                              *****

                                                              ORDER

This civil revision petition arises against the order of the learned

Principal District Munsif, Kanchipuram, in I.A.No.5 of 2023 in O.S.No.100

of 2011 dated 21.11.2023.

2. The plaintiffs are the civil revision petitioners. They moved an

application under Order 13 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure to reject

Exs.B.1 to B.4 which had been marked on 04.01.2023. The case of the

plaintiffs is that the first defendant had been given life estate and the vested

remainder had been given to them. The first defendant had alienated the

property in favour of third parties and hence, they came forth with

O.S.No.100 of 2011. Pending the suit, C.Rathinakumar was examined as

D.W.1. He pleaded that he adopted the second defendant on 31.01.1990

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

which was reflected in the Adoption Deed dated 21.02.2003 which was also

registered. The civil revision petitioners pleaded that the said document

was inadmissible in evidence by virtue of Section 10 of the Hindu Adoption

and Maintenance Act, 1956. Therefore, they wanted to reject the same.

3. The first respondent pleaded that he adopted his sister's son and did

not find a necessity to execute an adoption deed immediately. Since the

necessity of registering the document arose, subsequently it was registered

on 21.02.2003. The learned Judge dismissed the application by applying

the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bipin shantilal Panchal vs. State of

Gujarat and Anr. reported in (2001) 3 SCC 1. Against which, this revision.

4. Heard Mr.Sathiyamoorthy for the petitioner and Ms.Nathiya for

Mr.M.Ganesh, for the fifth respondent.

5. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned Judge has

reserved the admissibility and relevancy of the document at the time of final

disposal. All that the learned Judge has done in the present case is to

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

receive the documents. Under Order XIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, unless and until the document is inadmissible in law or

irrelevant, the same cannot be rejected. Whether the first defendant took on

the adoption of the second defendant or not would be a relevant fact for the

purpose of decision in the case. Therefore, I cannot conclude that it is

irrelevant. Nonetheless, the learned Judge having reserved the right of the

plaintiffs to raise the issue at the time of final disposal, I do not find any

reason to interfere with the order. Accordingly, Exs.B.1 to B.4 shall be

received by the trial Court subject to relevancy and proof.

6. With the above observation, the civil revision petition is dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous

petition is closed.

                                                                                       05.08.2024
                     Index                    : Yes/No
                     Neutral Citation         : Yes/No

                     sra








https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis




                     To

                     The Principal District Munsif Court,
                     Kanchipuram.








https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis


                                   V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.



                                                            (sra)









                                                   05.08.2024








https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis