Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2927 (MAD)

Chinnammal (Deceased) Annalakshmi v. Sirumbayee

2017-08-30

T.RAVINDRAN

body2017
ORDER : The second defendant in O.S.No.390 of 2004 has moved this civil revision petition impugning the fair and decreetal orders, dated 22.09.2016, passed in I.A.No.594 of 2015 in O.S.No.390 of 2004, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kulithalai. 2. The suit in O.S.No.390 of 2004 has been preferred by the respondents / plaintiffs for declaration and permanent injunction. It is found that the above said suit of the respondents / plaintiffs is resisted by the defendants and it is further found that the parties have adduced evidence in support of their respective case and when the matter stood adjourned for arguments, at that stage of the matter, the respondents / plaintiffs have preferred an application in I.A.No.594 of 2015 seeking for the examination of the LTI of the first defendant found in the unregistered sale deed marked as Ex.A3 with the LTI of the first defendant found in Ex.B1, the vakalat, summons etc., by an expert. The said application had been resisted by the second defendant and according to the second defendant, the unregistered sale deed marked as Ex.A3, not being a valid document in the eyes of law and the same would not in any manner confer title upon the respondents / plaintiffs in respect of the disputed property as per law, it is contended that the endeavour of the respondents / plaintiffs to compare the LTI of the first defendant found in the said unregistered sale deed with the LTI of the first defendant found in Ex.B1 and other documents is nothing but an attempt on the part of the respondents / plaintiffs to delay the proceedings endlessly, which had come to the stage of arguments and further, it is stated that even if the report of the expert is obtained in favour of the respondents / plaintiffs, they cannot lay any valid claim to the disputed property on that basis, and hence, it is stated that the application preferred by the respondents / plaintiffs should be rejected. 3. 3. The Court below, on a consideration of the rival contentions put forth by the respective parties, finding that the unregistered sale deed had already been marked as Ex.A3 and the respondents / plaintiffs seem to have based their claim in the suit property one way or the other on the basis of the same felt that the issues involved in the suit could be sorted out by the examination of the LTI of the first defendant found in the disputed document with the LTI of the first defendant found in Ex.B1 and therefore, allowed the application preferred by the respondents/plaintiffs. Impugning the same, the present civil revision petition has been preferred. 4. It is argued by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner that the document marked as Ex.A3 cannot be admitted in evidence as the same is not registered and properly stamped in accordance with law and in such view of the matter, no useful purpose would be served by subjecting the said document for expert's scrutiny with the registered sale deed marked as Ex.B1 and other documents and therefore, the Court below had erred in entertaining the application preferred by the respondents/plaintiffs. Per contra, it is the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents that the document on which the respondents/plaintiffs rely upon though being an unregistered sale deed, having since been marked, according to him, even if the same is not registered, that would not preclude the respondents/plaintiffs from seeking for the scrutiny of the said document by an expert to compare the LTI of the first defendant found in the said document with the LTI of the first defendant found in the document marked as Ex.B1 and therefore, it is stated that the defendants would not in any manner be prejudiced by the same and hence, the Court below had rightly allowed the application preferred by the respondents / plaintiffs. In this connection, the learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance upon the decisions reported in (2003) 4 SCC 161 [Bondar Singh and others vs. Nihal Singh and others], (2010) 5 SCC 401 [S.Kaladevi vs. V.R.Somasundaram and others] and 2014 (1) CTC 447 [T.Sivaperumal vs. S.Viswanathan and others]. 5. A perusal of the above cited decisions would go to show that unregistered sale deed could also be admitted in evidence for collateral purpose. 5. A perusal of the above cited decisions would go to show that unregistered sale deed could also be admitted in evidence for collateral purpose. Be that as it may, it is found that as seen from the decision reported in 2014 (1) CTC 447 (cited supra), even the signature / LTI found in the unregistered sale deed could also be compared with the signature / LTI of the other documents marked in the proceedings and thereby, the Court would also be in a better position to adjudicate the issues involved in the matter. In such view of the matter, it is found that merely because Ex.A3 is an unregistered document, the same having already been marked, the purpose for which it has been marked is not clearly spelt out, be that as it may, when it is found that the endeavour of the respondents / plaintiffs is only to compare the LTI of the first defendant found in Ex.A3 with the LTI of the first defendant found in Ex.B1, which document is projected by the defendants, it is found that as rightly determined by the Court below, the main issues involved between the parties could be easily sorted out one way or the other by subjecting the document in question for expert's scrutiny. No doubt, the respondents/plaintiffs have moved the application at the fag end of the trial. But, the same alone would not be a ground to reject the application preferred by the respondents/plaintiffs, if it is otherwise found acceptable. 6. In the light of the above discussions, it is found that the decision of the Court below in entertaining the application preferred by the respondents/plaintiffs for subjecting the document in question for expert's scrutiny cannot be faulted as such. In conclusion, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.