M.THANIKACHALAM
Gurusamy & Others – Appellant
Versus
Santhanam – Respondent
(This petition is preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order and decreetal order, dated 21.7.2004 made in IA No.451 of 2004 in OS No.82 of 1999 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ramanathapuram.)
Some of the defendants, who have failed in their attempt, seeking reception of certain documents, are the revision petitioners.
2. The respondent in this case has filed a suit against the defendants for partition and separate possession of her 1/12 share in the suit property, which is opposed by the defendants. While the suit is pending, the contesting defendants have filed a petition, of course, quoting a wrong provision for reception of documents, as detailed in IA No.451 of 2004. Totally, they have filed 13 documents or so.
3. One of the documents filed along with the petition, dated 25.6.1984 appears to be a release deed. The plaintiff opposed the reception of documents on the ground, since the release deed sought to be produced is an unregistered one, the same cannot be received. As far as the other documents are concerned, I find from the counter affidavit that there was no objection for their reception.
4. The learned District Munsif
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.