Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 3960 (MAD)

J. Suganth v. G. Kalaivani

2012-09-21

R.S.RAMANATHAN

body2012
Judgment :- The plaintiffs in O.S.No.279 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District Judge Court, Erode, are the revision petitioners. 2. They filed the suit for partition. During the examination of PW2 the application was filed to receive the Will dated 17.3.2008 in favour of the petitioners and that application was rejected and aggrieved by the same this revision is filed. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that the Court below failed to appreciate that the Will which is sought to be filed was already produced in G.W.O.P.No.10 of 2010 even on 14.11.2011 and the parties must be given an opportunity to produce the document in support to their case and such opportunity should not be denied and he relied upon the Judgements reported in 2009 (4) MLJ 189 (Hilda Pushpavathi and another Vs. Duraikkannu) and AIR 2007 Bombay 69 (Mohanraj Rupchand Jain Vs. Kewalchand Hastimal Jain and others) in support of his contention. He therefore submitted that the Court below should not have refused to entertain the application and ought to have allowed the application and permitted the parties to file the Will. 4. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners. The suit is one for partition and in the plaint the revision petitioners have not relied upon any of the Wills which were already marked and also about the Will which is sought to be marked in the suit. The revision petitioners claimed rights to the properties as Legal Representatives of Poongodi who was entitled to half share in the properties and therefore in a suit for partition, relying upon the right by birth to claim share in the properties, any Will alleged to have been executed by any third party may not be relevant. Further, during trial only the relevant document can be marked and merely because the Will was mentioned in the earlier proceedings and the properties are also mentioned in the Will, the Will cannot be allowed to be produced unless any right is claimed by the parties under the Will. Admittedly, no right is claimed by the revision petitioners under the Will and therefore the production of Will is rightly rejected by the Court below. In the Judgement reported in 2009 (4) MLJ 189 (Hilda Pushpavathi and another Vs. Admittedly, no right is claimed by the revision petitioners under the Will and therefore the production of Will is rightly rejected by the Court below. In the Judgement reported in 2009 (4) MLJ 189 (Hilda Pushpavathi and another Vs. Duraikkannu), the learned Judge dealt with the admissibility of document and held that the admissibility of document can be canvassed during trial and it cannot be rejected at the earlier stage. In the Judgement reported in AIR 2007 Bombay 69 (Mohanraj Rupchand Jain Vs. Kewalchand Hastimal Jain and others) also permission was given to the parties to file the documents at a later stage. According to me, the parties are entitled to produce the documents at a later stage by giving sufficient reasons to the Court. Under the pretext the party cannot file the documents which are not relevant to decide the case. In this case as stated supra, the Will has nothing to do with the relief of partition prayed for and the revision petitioners are also not relying upon the Will to claim their share in the suit properties. Hence, the Court below has rightly rejected the application and I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Court below and the revision is dismissed. 5. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.