C.R.P(MD).No.3011 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 29.02.2024
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
C.R.P(MD).No.3011 of 2023 and
CMP(MD).No.15524 of 2023
V.Saravana Babu .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.P.Thangakumar
2.K.Chandrakumar
3.S.Saritha ... Respondents
PRAYER:- Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
against the order, dated 08.09.2023 in I.A.No.1210 of 2023 in O.S.No.
124 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sivasubramanian
For 1st respondent : Mr.A.Arunprasad
ORDER
The suit in O.S.No.124 of 2022 was filed by the first
respondent herein / plaintiff against the revision petitioner / defendant
and others seeking the relief of permanent injunction not to evict them
otherwise then under process of law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
C.R.P(MD).No.3011 of 2023
2. Pending trial process, the first respondent / plaintiff tried
to mark the certain documents, for which, he filed I.A.No.1210 of 2023.
The petitioner herein has raised objection for marking of the documents
stating that the said documents are not relevant to the suit. After hearing
both sides, the trial Court permitted the first respondent / plaintiff to
mark the disputed documents. Aggrieved over the observations made by
the trial Court, the revision petitioner / defendant filed this Civil
Revision Petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied the paragraph
No.7 of the order passed by the trial Court in I.A,No.1210 of 2023, which
reads as follows:
“7. From the above contention, this Comes to the
conclusion that the plaintiff filed the suit for permanent
injunction against the present defendants not to disturb.
But the plaintiff becomes the owner of the property by
way of sale deed from the original owners of the
property. But herein the defendants are only the legal
heirs of the predeceased cultivating tenant. The suit is
not for deciding the ownership of the plaintiff or to
decide the cultivating tenancy of the defendants but it is
filed simply for the purpose of deciding the permanent
injunction of the plaintiff whether he is entitled or not.
For that the plaintiff relying upon the possession from
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/6
C.R.P(MD).No.3011 of 2023
the defendants by the questioned document. Even
though, the defendants claims that the documents to be
registered but denied the receiving of amounts and
handing over the possession. The person who claims
must be equity. Even after receiving the amount and
executing the document in favour of the plaintiff, the
defendants want to disturb the plaintiff even though
receiving huge amount. On the beneficial view, it is
clear that the plaintiff is not getting over nay title upon
the suit property upon the virtue of questioned
document. But he got title from the legally entitled
original owners but the possession was hand over by
the defendants in favour of the plaintiff is the content in
the questioned document. Therefore, the defendants
agitate vehemently, but the agitation is willful one.
Every question is to be answered within the limitation
by means of issues. In the instant case, the document
is only for the purpose of collateral to show the
possession of the plaintiff from the defendants.
Therefore, for the purpose of collateral the registration
of document is not necessary, the questioned document
herein can be looked into. Therefore, there is no
necessary to pay the additional stamp duty and the
adjudication. Therefore, the question is answered
positively that the plaintiff is entitled for relying and
marking the documents even though it is unregistered
and not properly stamped for the purpose of collateral
purpose.”
4. By pointing out this observation it is contended by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that while deciding the admissibility of
the document, the trial Court has went into the merits of case. If such
observation is allowed to stand in the order, then his right will be
affected during the trial process.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3/6
C.R.P(MD).No.3011 of 2023
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the first
respondent submitted that an observation has been made with reference
to the arguments advanced by both sides and that observation is not
going to effect the merit of the case at the time of final disposal of the
suit.
6. Reading of the observation, it is made clear that the trial
Court went into the merits of the matter based upon the document, it may
not be necessary. The trial Court has to see the relevancy and
admissibility of the documents at the relevant point of time. If such
observations are allowed stand in the record, then rights of the parties
will be seriously prejudiced. So on that ground, the particular
observation made by the trial Court in I.A.No.1210 of 2023 in O.S.No.
124 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur is
ordered to be removed and the parties are at liberty to putforth their
arguments at the time of hearing suit in respect of the admissibility of the
documents.
7. With the above observation, this Civil Revision Petition is
disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4/6
C.R.P(MD).No.3011 of 2023
Petition is closed.
29.02.2024
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Speaking / Non Speaking order
trp
To
The Principal Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5/6
C.R.P(MD).No.3011 of 2023
G.ILANGOVAN,J.
Trp
C.R.P(MD).No.3011 of 2023 and
CMP(MD).No.15524 of 2023
29.02.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6/6