Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 876 (MAD)

P. Balasubramani v. K. Krishnan

2021-03-11

V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

body2021
ORDER : The Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the Fair and Decreetal order passed in I.A. No.889 of 2018 in O.S.No.133 of 2015 dated 29.01.2019 by the District Munsif, Ponneri. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner herein is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.133 of 2015 on the file the district Munsif, Ponneri. The respondent/plaintiff has filed the aforesaid suit seeking for permanent injunction restraining the defendant/petitioner herein from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property measuring an extent of 1 acres and 44 cents in survey No.2/22 at Alamathi Village, Ponneri. In the meanwhile, the defendant/petitioner herein has filed I.A. No.889 of 2018 on its file seeking for permission of the Court below for receiving two additional documents namely certified copy of Sale Deeds vide Doc.No.4848/2006 dated 23.06.2006 and Doc. No.12101/2006 dated 29.12.2006. The same was dismissed by order dated 29.01.2019 in view of belated filing of the said application as the Trial had already begun and the case was posted for defendant side evidence. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the defendant/petitioner herein has filed the present Civil Revision Petition against the dismissal order of the Trial Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the defendant/petitioner herein is a Son-in-Law of the plaintiff/respondent herein. The plaintiff/respondent herein had settled 15 cents (6536 Sq.ft.) of land comprised in S.No.3/1, Alamathi Village, in his daughter's favour namely Radha on 03.12.2003 vide settlement Deed, Doc. No.5394/2003 on the file of the SRO, Redhills. The petitioner had obtained approval and constructed a building in the said property. Thereafter, Radha, ie. wife of the petitioner, had settled the said property in favour of her husband, ie. the petitioner herein, through a settlement deed dated 01.07.2010 vide doc. No.4803 of 2010 on the file of the SRO, Redhills, thereby the petitioner herein is absolute owner of the said property. It has been further submitted that the plaintiff/respondent herein is a widower, resides along with the defendant/petitioner herein. The respondent's another daughter Latha and Son Vijayakumar are residing in the adjoining properties as nuclear families. No.4803 of 2010 on the file of the SRO, Redhills, thereby the petitioner herein is absolute owner of the said property. It has been further submitted that the plaintiff/respondent herein is a widower, resides along with the defendant/petitioner herein. The respondent's another daughter Latha and Son Vijayakumar are residing in the adjoining properties as nuclear families. The plaintiff/respondent herein being a widower indulged in immoral activities and brought ladies to his personal room, in the house, where the defendant/petitioner herein is living with his wife and daughter as family. On questioning about the same, the plaintiff/respondent herein had enraged with the defendant/petitioner herein and filed a bare injunction suit before the Trial Court. In the suit, the plaintiff/respondent herein has deliberately mentioned his other property in S.No.2/2, as if the defendant/petitioner herein disturbed his peaceful possession, while the defendant/petitioner herein is the absolute owner of the building property comprised in S.No.3/1, Alamathi Village but the relief sought for to a different S.No.2/2, Alamathi Village, and hence the suit is vexatious and dismissed. To substantiate the above, the relevant documents which are executed by the plaintiff/respondent herein are required to be marked before the Trial Court. It has been further submitted that after the petitioner having come to know about the suppression of sale deeds dated 23.06.2006 and 29.12.2010, executed by the plaintiff/respondent herein before the Trial Court at the stage of deposition of evidence, he had moved three applications, vide I.A. Nos.1007 of 2018, 1008 of 2018 and 889 of 2018 before the Court below seeking for to reopen the evidence, recall and re-examine the petitioner and to introduce the suppressed two sale deed dated 23.06.2006 and 29.12.2010, respectively. While the I.A. Nos.1007 and 1008 of 2018 were allowed as the plaintiff/respondent herein had endorsed no objection as prayed for in the said applications, the I.A.No.889 of 2018 was dismissed as the respondent had objected the prayer of the defendant/petitioner herein stating the reason of belated filing of the application while the said suit was posted for the evidence on the side of the defendant. The Trial Court has not considered the proposed documents dated 23.06.2006 and 29.12.2010 which are related to the suit schedule property comprised in S.No.2/2 executed by the respondent/plaintiff and not by the defendant/petitioner herein. The Trial Court has not considered the proposed documents dated 23.06.2006 and 29.12.2010 which are related to the suit schedule property comprised in S.No.2/2 executed by the respondent/plaintiff and not by the defendant/petitioner herein. While filing the aforesaid suit, the proposed documents were suppressed before the Court below and hence, the proposed documents are required to be marked before the Court below. However, the application has been dismissed without considering the aforesaid facts stating that the application has been filed belatedly when the suit has been posted for evidence on the side of the defendant. Hence, this Court may be pleased to set aside the aforesaid order. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the proposed two documents are nothing to do with the said suit property and the petition has been filed only to protract the proceedings of suit. While the petitioner along with family members is living in Survey No.3/1, Alamathy, but, the plaintiff/respondent has filed the suit to restrict the defendant/petitioner herein from interfering with the suit property comprised in Survey No.2/2, Alamathy, wherein the plaintiff/respondent herein is in possession and enjoying the same. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent as well as perused the material available on record. 6. On perusal of the record it is seen that while the defendant/petitioner herein is the absolute owner of the property to the extent of 15 cent or 6536 Sq.ft. in S.No.3/1, bearing Patta No.197 situated at Alamathi Village, Ponneri Taluk, which was also derived from the plaintiff/respondent herein by way of settlement deed in favour of his wife, the plaintiff/respondent herein seeks relief in O.S. No.133 of 2015 restricting the defendant/petitioner herein from interfering with the suit property comprised in S.No.2/2, Alamathi Village which is possessed and enjoyed by the plaintiff/respondent herein. The suit schedule property comprised in Survey No.2/2 belonged to the plaintiff/respondent herein, is no way connected with the property comprised in S. No.3/1, belonged to the defendant/petitioner herein. Hence, the prayer in the said suit seeking for permanent injunction against the defendant/petitioner herein is related to the suit property belonged to the plaintiff/respondent herein whereas the petitioner has sought for to mark the proposed documents in the suit case which is not at all related to the defendant/petitioner herein. Hence, the prayer in the said suit seeking for permanent injunction against the defendant/petitioner herein is related to the suit property belonged to the plaintiff/respondent herein whereas the petitioner has sought for to mark the proposed documents in the suit case which is not at all related to the defendant/petitioner herein. If the proposed documents are related to with the defendant/petitioner herein, the defendant/petitioner herein can seek the Court below to mark the same. But, the proposed documents are not nothing to do with the suit property comprised in Survey No.2/2 and the same is not related to with the suit property belonged to the defendant/petitioner herein. While verifying the Deeds as stated by the defendant/petitioner herein, the Document No.4848 of 2006 on the file of the SRO, Red hills shows that the deed has been executed to grant of right of way to the extent of 0.42 cent only and not right, title and interest in the said suit schedule property and not entire suit schedule property . Hence the petitioner has got no right to file application to mark the aforesaid documents which is not related to the defendant/petitioner herein as the prayer in the suit to restrict the defendant/petitioner herein alone in the suit property belonged to the plaintiff/respondent herein and hence the Court below has rightly dismissed the application in I.A. No.889 of 2018. 7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court below is directed to proceed further with the Trial in the said suit and complete the same as expeditiously as possible. 8. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed if any. There shall be no order as to costs.