Madras High Court
R.Krishnakumar vs Kumar on 6 November, 2024
C.R.P.(PD)Nos.4685 & 4686 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.11.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.(PD)Nos.4685 & 4686 of 2015
and M.P.No.1 of 2015
In both CRPs.
1. R.Krishnakumar
2. Alamelu .. Petitioners
Vs
1. Kumar
2. Sankar
3. Chandra (died)
4. Chithra
5. Chinnakannnu
6. Sudhakar
7. Suganeswari
8. Birunthavanam
9. Suresh Kumar
(3rd respondent died. RR5 to 9 are brought on record
as legal heirs of the deceased 3rd respondent viz.
Mrs.Chandra vide Court order dated 06.11.2024 made
in C.M.P.Nos.26218, 26216 & 26213 of 2023
in C.R.P.(PD)No.4685 of 2015 &
C.M.P.Nos.26204, 26201 & 26208 of 2023 in
C.R.P.(PD)No.4686 of 2015 by VLNJ) .. Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
C.R.P.(PD)Nos.4685 & 4686 of 2015
COMMON PRAYER: Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Article
227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decretal order dated
15.10.2015 in I.A.Nos.249 & 250 of 2015 in O.S.No.289 of 2010 on the
file of the learned District Munsif, Mettur.
In both CRPs.
For Petitioners : Mr.M.Rajasekhar
COMMON ORDER
Both these civil revision petitions arise against the order passed by
the learned District Munsif at Mettur in I.A.Nos.249 & 250 of 2015 in
O.S.No.289 of 2010, dated 15.10.2015.
2. The plaintiffs are the civil revision petitioners. They have filed
O.S.No.289 of 2010 seeking partition and separate possession. The
defendants were served with summons. They also filed a written
statement. The plea in the written statement in order to deny a decree for
partition is that there was an oral partition, which had taken place
between the plaintiffs and the defendants, in the year 2000. Nowhere in
the written statement, has any plea being taken that there had been
partition muchalika entered into between the parties.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD)Nos.4685 & 4686 of 2015
3. During the course of trial, the defendants had projected a
document purporting to be a partition muchalika. This was strongly
opposed by the plaintiffs. Yet the Court received the document as Ex.B8,
of course, subject to the objections made by the plaintiffs.
4. As the document had been received by the Court, the plaintiffs
took out applications in I.A.Nos.249 & 250 of 2015 seeking to reopen
the evidence of the plaintiffs and to send Ex.B8 for forensic science
report. It is the categorical case of the plaintiffs that the 2nd plaintiff is not
a signatory to any panchayat muchalika. Hence, to substantiate the said
plea, she being a Government servant, produced records obtained from
her superior officer for the purpose of comparison of the signature in
Ex.B8 along with her admitted signatures. The learned District Munsif at
Mettur dismissed the applications. Hence, these revisions.
5. Notice was ordered in these revisions. The respondents have
been served yet they have not entered appearance.
6. I have heard the submissions of Mr.Rajasekar for the civil
revision petitioners. I have carefully gone through the records.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD)Nos.4685 & 4686 of 2015
7. A narration of the aforesaid fact point out that there is no
pleading regarding any written muchalika that had been entered into
between the plaintiffs and other members of the family. It is too well
settled position of law, yet, I have to reiterate at this stage, no amount of
evidence can be looked into when it is not supported by a plea.
8. A reading of the written statement shows that the defendants
only pleaded about an oral partition between the members of the family.
The written statement is absolutely silent about an alleged panchayat
muchalika dated 28.03.2001. If that be the position, then obviously the
Trial Court is correct in coming to a conclusion that when there is no
plea, the Court cannot rely upon the document.
9. Learned Trial Judge has merely followed the settled position of
law as declared by the Supreme Court and this Court. When the Court
has come to a conclusion that it is not going to rely upon Ex.B8 at the
time of pronouncement of judgment and in my opinion rightly so, there is
no necessity to send the document for forensic examination.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD)Nos.4685 & 4686 of 2015
10. In the light of the above discussions, both the civil revision
petitions stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
06.11.2024
Index:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order: Yes/No
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
kj
To
The District Munsif, Mettur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD)Nos.4685 & 4686 of 2015
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.
Kj
C.R.P.(PD)Nos.4685 & 4686 of 2015
06.11.2024
(4/4)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
