Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 4836 (MAD)

A. Manickavasagar v. S. P. Ravichandran

2011-12-16

R.MALA

body2011
Judgment :- 1. This Civil Revision Petition arises out of the order dated 11.12.2009 made in I.A. No.112 of 2009 in O.S.No.9 of 2007 on the file of II Additional District Munsif Court, Bhavani. 2. Petitioner, who is the defendant filed an application in I.A.No.112/2009 under Order 11 Rule 14 of C.P.C. & Section 151 of C.P.C. for directing the plaintiffs to produce any registered or public document containing signature of the first respondent/first plaintiff for the relevant period of unregistered usufructuary mortgage deed dated 28.08.2003 to compare the signature of the first respondent in the said mortgage deed with the admitted signature of the first respondent in the document to be produced. 3. The first respondent/first plaintiff resisting the same by way of filing the counter stated that the document itself is forged and since it is unregistered and void document, it cannot be an admissible evidence. Hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the application. The learned Additional District Munsif after hearing the argument of both sides dismissed the application, against which, the present revision has been preferred. 4. Challenging the order passed by the learned Munsif, learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.T.Murugamanickam, would submit that the respondents as plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.9 of 2007 for recovery of possession and also for costs stating that this revision petitioner was granted permission for occupation of the property owned by respondents/plaintiffs. Since the respondents/plaintiffs revoked the permission granted and sought for delivery of possession, this revision petitioner himself filed a written statement with counter claim, claiming injunction till the plaintiffs have paid Rs.85,000/-with interest at the rate of 24% per annum for the amount of Rs.75,000/-from 28.08.2003 to him. Respondents/Plaintiffs herein have filed their reply statement stating that they disputed the genuinity of the unregistered usufructuary mortgage deed. Hence, this revision petitioner has come forward with an application in I.A.No.112/2009 for a direction to the respondents/plaintiffs herein to produce the document to facilitate and compare the signature of the first respondent with the disputed document. He further submitted that since respondents/plaintiffs herein have denied the signature in the document, the burden is upon the revision petitioner to prove the genuinity of unregistered usufructuary mortgage deed, admitted signature of the first respondent is necessary for comparison. He further submitted that since respondents/plaintiffs herein have denied the signature in the document, the burden is upon the revision petitioner to prove the genuinity of unregistered usufructuary mortgage deed, admitted signature of the first respondent is necessary for comparison. So he was forced to file that application and that factum was not considered by the learned Munsif and hence he prayed for setting aside the order passed by the learned Munsif. 5. Refuting the same, Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs would submit that the document alleged to be produced by the revision petitioner is an unregistered usufructuary mortgage deed. In the reply statement of respondents/plaintiffs to the counter claim, their candid defence is that the document is forged and concocted document. Since it is an usufructuary mortgage deed, it must be registered. But the document is an unregistered document and hence, the document itself is not an admissible evidence and it cannot be marked as preliminary evidence. In such circumstances, to delay the proceedings, the revision petitioner herein was filed an application. The learned Munsif considered this aspect in a proper perspective and dismissed the application. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the revision. 6. Considered the rival submissions made by both sides and materials available on record. 7. Respondents/Plaintiffs herein have filed a suit for recovery of possession stating that they are the owner of the suit property. They permitted the revision petitioner/defendant herein to occupy the portion of the property, since he is a relative. Now the first respondent revoked the permission given to the revision petitioner/defendant. After issuance of legal notice to the revision petitioner/defendant, Respondents/Plaintiffs have come forward with the suit for recovery of possession. Revision Petitioner himself filed a written statement and also made a counter claim, claiming injunction to restrain the respondents/plaintiffs to interfere with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property, until the plaintiffs have paid the amount of Rs.85,000/- with interest at the rate of 24% per annum for the amount of Rs.75,000/-from 28.08.2003 and costs, for which, the respondents/plaintiffs filed a reply statement. In para-4 of the reply statement, respondents/plaintiffs stated that the unregistered usufructuary mortgage deed, dated 28.08.2003, is a concocted document. 8. On perusal of the document dated 28.08.2003, it is an unregistered usufructuary mortgage deed alleged to be executed by the first respondent/first plaintiff. In para-4 of the reply statement, respondents/plaintiffs stated that the unregistered usufructuary mortgage deed, dated 28.08.2003, is a concocted document. 8. On perusal of the document dated 28.08.2003, it is an unregistered usufructuary mortgage deed alleged to be executed by the first respondent/first plaintiff. As per the law, unregistered usufructuary mortgage deed is not admissible in evidence. Unless the document was impounded after paying necessary deficit stamp duty, then only, the document is admissible in evidence. Without taking steps for impounding the document, the revision petitioner has come forward with an application in I.A.No.112 of 2009 for a direction to the respondents/ plaintiffs to produce the document containing the admitted signature of the first respondent during the relevant period, which shows that he has an intention to drag on the proceedings, since he is in possession of the suit property. That factum has been considered by the learned Munsif, in para-7 of his order and came to the correct conclusion. Therefore, I am of the view that there is no reason warranting interference with the findings of the learned Munsif. 9. In the result, confirming the order dated 11.12.2009, made in I.A.No.112 of 2009 in O.S.No.9 of 2007 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Bhavani, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.