Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 495 (MAD)

Narasimhan v. Ramachandran & Others

2005-03-21

S.SARDAR ZACKRIA HUSSAIN

body2005
Judgment :- The plaintiff in O.S.No.356 of 2000 on the file of the Court District Munsif, Tindivanam, is the revision petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. This revision is directed against the order dated 17.10.2003 and made in I.A.No.1187 of 2003 in O.S.No.356 of 2000 on the file of the Court of Principal District Munsif, Tindivanam, allowing the petition filed by the defendants for rejection of the documents Exs.A.7 and Ex.A.8 marked during cross-examination of D.W.1. 2. In the affidavit filed by the second defendant, it is stated that when he was cross-examined on 11.9.2003 by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, three documents were shown to him by the learned counsel and he stated in his evidence that the signature in the three documents, namely, rental receipts, look like that of the first defendant Kasinathan and they have been marked as Exs.A.7 to A.9. It is mentioned in Ex.A.7 that the lease is for a period of three years, in Ex.A.8 the lease is stipulated for a period of two years and Ex.A.9 is also for lease. It is further stated that the signatures in Exs.A.7 to A.9 have been forged and, therefore, the petition has been filed seeking to reject the above said documents. 3. The petition was opposed in the counter filed by the plaintiff stating that the above said documents were marked at the time of cross-examination of D.W.1 and no objection was raised by him at that time and, therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the petition. 4. The trial Court, accepting the case of the defendants, allowed the petition rejecting the documents marked as Exs.A.7 and A.8. Challenging the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2. 6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff submitted that inasmuch as the documents Exs.A.7 to A.9 have already been marked even at the time of cross-examination of D.W.1 on 11.9.2003, the petition filed by the defendants for rejecting the documents Exs.A.7 and A.8 is not maintainable. Learned counsel also submitted that inasmuch as Exs.A.7 to A.9 are the rental receipts, marking of the same by the trial Court is proper in view of the fact that the above said documents can be received for collateral purpose to show the character of possession. Learned counsel also submitted that inasmuch as Exs.A.7 to A.9 are the rental receipts, marking of the same by the trial Court is proper in view of the fact that the above said documents can be received for collateral purpose to show the character of possession. In support of such contention, learned counsel relied on the decision of this Court in KAUSALYA AMMAL - vs. - VALLIAMMAI AMMAL AND ANOTHER (1997-II C.T.C. 517) wherein His Lordship AR. Lakshmanan, J. (as he then was) had occasion to consider the admissibility of unregistered lease deed and held as under:- "As already noticed, the document is sought to be relied on by the plaintiff only for the purpose of proving his character of possession and not to be used to determine the rights of the parties and also not for proving any of the terms of the lease deed. Therefore, even in the above judgment, the Court has held that an unregistered agreement by itself could be used only for collateral purposes to find out who is in possession". 7. Learned counsel for the respondents/defendants argued that inasmuch as the documents, viz., Exs.A.7 and A.8 are unregistered, the same cannot be received in evidence and marking of such documents is improper and, therefore, the said documents already marked are to be rejected. 8. The plaintiff filed the suit for possession of the suit properties and for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,000/- being the warram amount for the year 1999 and for future warram. The suit properties are situate at Melparadikuppam village in Tindivanam Taluk. It is stated that the defendants 1 to 3 took the suit properties for lease on oral warram basis from one Thiyagarajan, who took delivery of the suit properties as Court auction purchaser in O.S.No.739 of 1964, and the defendants 1 to 3 had been paying the warram amount to the plaintiff, power agent of the said Thiyagarajan, and since the defendants failed to pay the warram amount, the same necessitated the plaintiff to file the suit for the above said reliefs. 9. The suit is resisted in the written statement filed by the defendants denying the case of the plaintiff. 9. The suit is resisted in the written statement filed by the defendants denying the case of the plaintiff. It is stated that the first defendant, who is the brother of the defendants 2 and 3, issued the receipts Exs.A.7 and A.8 agreeing the lease under the plaintiff and took possession of the suit properties for lease. 10. Inasmuch as it is clear from the receipts that the defendants have taken possession of the suit properties on lease from the plaintiff, marking of the rental receipts as Exs.A.7 to A.9 for collateral purpose to show the character of possession cannot be said to be improper as held by the decision of this Court cited supra. In that view, the order of the trial Court being erroneous is liable to be set aside. 11. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The order dated 17.10.2003 in I.A.No.1187 of 2003 in O.S.No.356 of 2000 passed by the Court of Principal District Munsif, Tindivanam, is set aside. Consequently, C.M.P.No.21115 of 2003 is closed.