Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 4586 (MAD)

First v. Second

2011-11-21

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2011
Judgment : VINOD K. SHARMA., J. 1. This application, under Order XIV, Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules, read with Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been moved by the applicant/plaintiff, for grant of an order of interim injunction, restraining the first respondent/first defendant and all persons claiming through or under him from in any manner relying on the forged and fabricated documents viz., i. alleged Birth Certificate of the first respondent bearing B & D No.108/59, dated 09.07.1959, allegedly registered with the 2nd respondent under Registration No.450, ii. alleged death certificate of C.T.Chidambaram Chettiar, dated 22.04.2002, bearing B & D No.1806/1978, allegedly registered with the 2nd defendant under Registration No.24, iii. alleged Will of Alagammai Achi, dated 09.07.2002, allegedly registered with the 3rd defendant as Document No.109 of 2002, iv. alleged death certificate of C.T.Alagammai Achi, dated 22.12.2002, bearing B & D No.17601/2002, allegedly registered with the 2nd respondent under Registration No.36 and v. alleged certificate of legal heirs of C.T.Chidambaram Chettiar, dated 09.01.2003, bearing Sl.No.3969/2003, allegedly issued by the 4th respondent, in any proceedings whatsoever and / or claiming any right through the said documents, pending disposal of the suit. 2. The applicant/plaintiff has filed a suit with the following prayer:- "(a) Declaring that the (i) alleged Birth Certificate of the first defendant bearing B & D No.108/59, dated 09.07.1959, allegedly registered with the 2nd defendant under Registration No.450, (ii) alleged death certificate of C.T.Chidambaram Chettiar, dated 22.04.2002, bearing B & D No.1806/1978, allegedly registered with the 2nd defendant under Registration No.24, (iii) alleged Will of Alagammai Achi, dated 09.07.2002, allegedly registered with the Sub-Registrar, Perambur as Document No.109 of 2002, (iv) alleged death certificate of C.T.Alagammai Achi, dated 22.12.2002, bearing B & D No.17601/2002, allegedly registered with the 2nd defendant under Registration No.36 and (v) alleged certificate of legal heirs of C.T.Chidambaram Chettiar, dated 09.01.2003, bearing Sl.No.3969/2003, allegedly issued by the 4th defendant, as put forth and relied on by the 1st defendant and filed herein as Suit Document Nos.1 to 5, are forged and fabricated documents and null and void and non-est in law. (b) Consequently granting permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant and all persons claiming through or under him from relying on the said documents viz., (i) alleged Birth Certificate of the first defendant bearing B & D No.108/59, dated 09.07.1959, allegedly registered with the 2nd defendant under Registration No.450, (ii) alleged death certificate of C.T.Chidambaram Chettiar, dated 22.04.2002, bearing B & D No.1806/1978, allegedly registered with the 2nd defendant under Registration No.24, (iii) alleged Will of Alagammai Achi, dated 09.07.2002, allegedly registered with the 3rd defendant as Document No.109 of 2002, (iv) alleged death certificate of C.T.Alagammai Achi, dated 22.12.2002, bearing B & D No.17601/2002, allegedly registered with the 2nd defendant under Registration No.36 and (v) alleged certificate of legal heirs of C.T.Chidambaram Chettiar, dated 09.01.2003, bearing Sl.No.3969/2003, allegedly issued by the 4th defendant, in any manner and in any proceedings whatsoever and / or claiming any right through the said documents and (c) Directing the first defendant to pay the costs of this suit." 3. The plaintiff claims to be wife of Arunachalam Chettiar, whereas the first defendant is C.T.Kannan. The plaintiff does not know the fathers name and his age. The second defendant is Corporation of Chennai. The third defendant is Sub-Registrar. The fourth defendant is Deputy Tahsildhar. 4. It is pleaded, that the plaintiff is owning properties in India and Malaysia, whereas some of the properties are acquired by the plaintiff by way of bequest made by her sister C.T. Alagammai Achi, wife of late SK.CT.Chidambaram Chettiar @ C.T.C.C.T.Chidambaram Chettiar, under her Will dated 25.01.1982. 5. The probate of Will has been granted by the High Court of Malaysia at Kualalumpur. It is the case of the plaintiff, that the defendant No.1 has filed a false suit to claim a piece of land situated at GM 132, Lot No.868, Mukim Damansara Village, Malaysia, forming part of the properties said to have been bequeathed to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has filed a suit in Malaysia, where the proceedings are going on. In the said suit, the defendant No.1, filed an affidavit, wherein, the documents challenged by the plaintiff have been filed. 6. The stand of the learned counsel for the applicant/plaintiff is, that the documents filed in Malaysian Court are forged and fabricated, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to declaration prayed for and also the consequential relief. 7. In the said suit, the defendant No.1, filed an affidavit, wherein, the documents challenged by the plaintiff have been filed. 6. The stand of the learned counsel for the applicant/plaintiff is, that the documents filed in Malaysian Court are forged and fabricated, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to declaration prayed for and also the consequential relief. 7. Along with the suit, the plaintiff has filed this application, for interim injunction restraining the defendant No.1 from using the documents. 8. Defendants 2, 3 and 4 have been impleaded as parties, only because the documents are alleged to have been issued by these authorities, even though they are not concerned with the lis between the parties. 9. The learned counsel for the applicant/plaintiff vehemently contended that the birth certificate, filed by the defendant No.1, is prima facie a forged and fabricated document, as it shown to have been issued much prior to enactment of Registration of Birth and Death Act, 1969. Though the Act is of 1969, the date of registration is shown to 1959, and this fact is further proved from the information sought under Right to Information Act, whereby plaintiff has been informed that the documents are not genuine. 10. The learned counsel for the applicant/plaintiff further contends that as per the information under the Right to Information Act, these documents have not been issued by the authorities concerned. 11. On consideration, this Court finds that, prima facie of the suit filed is misconceived and is not maintainable. The applicant/plaintiff is trying to challenge the documents produced in proceedings before the Malaysian Court. It is pleaded in the suit that, the documents, challenged by the applicant/plaintiff, have been filed by the defendant No.1 in the Malaysian Court. The remedy with the applicant/plaintiff is, to challenge those documents in the Malaysian Court, where proceedings are pending and not in this Court. No declaration can be issued as prayed for. 12. The suit prima facie is barred under Section 41(H) of The Specific Relief Act, 1963, as the applicant/plaintiff has remedy to challenge these documents in the pending proceedings in the Malaysian Court, including initiation of criminal proceedings if any forged documents are filed in Court according to laws of Malaysia. 13. The application, cannot be said to be bona fide nor it can be said that the applicant/plaintiff, has come to Court with clean hands. 14. 13. The application, cannot be said to be bona fide nor it can be said that the applicant/plaintiff, has come to Court with clean hands. 14. The learned counsel for the applicant/plaintiff also contends that the submissions of the applicant/plaintiff be accepted as no counter is filed as also for the fact, that the Malaysian Court will not be in a position to appreciate the validity of documents. 15. This contention again is misconceived. This Court is not competent to give any opinion about the competency of the Malaysian Court as to whether the learned Court is capable of adjudication of cases pending before it. Specially when the applicant/plaintiff himself has chosen to file proceedings in the Malaysian Court. The application is, merely an attempt to create of evidence, for production before the Court at Malaysia. The jurisdiction of High Court is not meant for this purpose, specially in view of bar under Section 41(H) of The Specific Relief Act. 16. Consequently, this application is dismissed with costs, which are assessed at Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), as the applicant has not approached this Court with clean hands.