Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2953 (MAD)

Natesa Naicker v. Poongavanammal

2006-11-03

P.SATHASIVAM

body2006
Judgment :- (Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code against the order dated 10.02.2005 made in I.A.No.37 of 2005 in O.S.No.63 of 1997 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Chengam.) The defendant in O.S.No.63 of 1997 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Chengam, challenges the order dated 10.02.2005 made in I.A.No.37 of 2005 in O.S.No.63 of 1997, in and by which, the learned District Munsif has allowed the said application filed for acceptance of the document-memorandum "kuri chittu". 2. The objections of the learned counsel for the petitioner are that the said document viz., memorandum is an unregistered document and the same cannot be entertained and the respondent herein-plaintiff has not adduced any reason for not filing the said document at the time of filing of the suit. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the affidavit filed in support of the application for acceptance of the said document does not contain any such details. 3. On going through the affidavit, counter affidavit and the impugned order of the learned Additional District Munsif, Chengam as well as the plaint averments, I am unable to accept the said contention. It is useful to mention that even in para 5 of the plaint, the plaintiff has specifically stated as follows: "The petitioner/plaintiff submits that her husband's origin is Karikkalambadi village, Tiruvannamalai Taluk. The respondent/defendant and his brother Vaiyapuri owned lands at Karikkalambadi Village. They have partitioned their properties orally. To evidence the same, subsequently they had executed a document dated 14.08.1950 before panchayathars." 4. The document dated 14.08.1950 referred to above is sought to be marked by filing I.A.No.37 of 2005 in O.S.No.63 of 1997. Though in the affidavit filed in support of the above application the plaintiff has not assigned any specific reason for not filing the document at the time of filing of the suit, it is not in dispute that a specific averment has been made in the plaint with regard to the execution of the memorandum dated 14.08.1950. In addition to the same, as rightly pointed out by the learned Additional District Munsif, Chengam, merely because the said document is marked as exhibit, it cannot be construed that the claim of the plaintiff is proved. In other words, it is for the plaintiff to establish and substantiate her claim by letting acceptable oral and documentary evidence. In addition to the same, as rightly pointed out by the learned Additional District Munsif, Chengam, merely because the said document is marked as exhibit, it cannot be construed that the claim of the plaintiff is proved. In other words, it is for the plaintiff to establish and substantiate her claim by letting acceptable oral and documentary evidence. All these aspects have been taken note of by the learned District Munsif, Chengam, while allowing the said application. I do not find any error or infirmity for interference. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, CMP No.17054 of 2005 is also dismissed.