Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1661 (MAD)

T. G. Bheemaraj v. Yasotha

2010-04-08

M.JAICHANDREN

body2010
Judgment :- This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order, dated 25.11.2009, made in I.A.No.986 of 2009, in O.S.No.318 of 2004, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Maduranthagam. 2. The petitioner had filed the suit, in O.S.No.318 of 2004, for a decree of permanent injunction against the respondent, who is the defendant in the said suit. The petitioner had also filed an interlocutory application, in I.A.No.986 of 2009, in O.S.No.318 of 2004, praying that the trial Court may be pleased to issue summons to the witnesses shown in the petition filed under Order XVI Rules 1 and 6 of the civil Procedure Code, 1908, and to direct the witnesses to produce the Original Koor chit, dated 17.11.1972, into the Court. 3. The petitioner had stated that the suit property had been purchased by the respondent, under a registered sale deed, dated 22.9.2003. As per the averments in the sale deed, the respondents vendor had acquired the property, under a family arrangement. During the course of the cross examination, D.W.1 had admitted that her vendor, Abdul Raghuman, his brother Abdul Ajees and their mother had partitioned their properties, under a partition deed (Koor chit), dated 17.11.1972. However, the partition deed had not been produced by the defendant. As per the Koor chit the respondents vendor, Abdul Raghuman, was not allotted the suit property. Therefore, the sale deed executed by Abdul Raghuman, in favour of the respondent, cannot be valid. To prove the same, the petitioner had examined, Abdul Raghuman and his mother Jaiyanebee, who are parties to the Koor chit and one Nagavelu, who had purchased some properties from Abdul Ajees. The petitioner had filed the interlocutory application in order to examine the said persons and for the production of the Koor chit. 4. The trial Court, by its order, dated 25.11.2009, had dismissed the application stating that the said application filed on the basis of the admission of the respondent/defendant, cannot be maintained. The trial Court had also stated that the Koor chit is an unregistered document and unless the partition is registered it is not admissible in evidence, as it is hit by Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The trial Court had also stated that it is for the petitioner, as the plaintiff in the suit, to prove his case. The trial Court had also stated that it is for the petitioner, as the plaintiff in the suit, to prove his case. It had also been noted that the application had been filed, belatedly, when the suit had been posted for arguments and that the application had been filed only for the purpose of protracting the proceedings in the suit. 5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to grant the reliefs, as prayed for by the petitioner in the present civil revision petition. 6. The trial Court had rightly held, by its order, 25.11.2009, made in I.A.No.986 of 2009, in O.S.No.318 of 2004, that it is for the plaintiff to substantiate his claims, by sufficient evidence. Further, the petitioner had filed the interlocutory application, at a belated stage, when the suit had been posted for arguments. In such circumstances, the civil revision petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.