ORDER: The revision petition is directed against the order dated 7.12.1999 in O.S.No.154 of 1997 on the file of District Munsif, Periyakulam.

2. First defendant in that suit is the petitioner in this revision. Respondents herein filed the said suit for bare injunction. The petitioner herein/1st defendant therein filed a written statement disputing the claim made by the plaintiff and also denied the allegation that the plaintiff purchased the suit property through a registered sale deed dated 12.2.1985. It is also contended that plaintiff does not have title or possession over the suit property. He also specifically pleaded that he has been in physical possession and enjoyment as pathway for more than the statutory period and such possession and enjoyment was open, hostile and uninterrupted one, and perfected his title by adverse possession.

3. While the petitioner- first defendant was examined as D.W.1, an unregistered sale deed dated 14.10.1980 was sought to be marked through him. The same was objected to by the plaintiff on the ground that since the defendant wants to establish his possession through the said document and the same being an unregistered one, the same cannot be marked.

4. After analysing the defence taken by the defendant, the Court below came to the conclusion that he is basing his possession through the said document dated 14.10.1980, and in the absence of registration which is mandatory, the Court below accepted the objection raised by the plaintiff and refused to mark the said document on the side of the defendant.

5. As requested, I have also carefully perused the plea of the defendant in their written statement as well as the sale deed dated 14.10.1980. In the light of the stand of the defendant and of the fact that the value of the property is more than Rs.100.00 the Court below is justified in refusing to mark the said document on the side of the defendant. Even though it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said document can be marked for collateral purpose viz., for proving possession of the suit property, I am unable to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The decision viz., Ayyavu (died) and others v. Shanti Bibi and others, (2000)1 L.W. 466 relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the light of the factual position in our case, does not help the petitioner’s case.

6. In this regard, it is useful to refer the decision of this Court reported in Ruckmangathan v. Ramalingam, (1997)2 C.T.C. 595. In an identical circumstance, Subramani, J., in the said decision has concluded,

"11. On going through the written statement as well as the application, we find that what the defendant wants to prove is, the factum of sale. He has no case anywhere in the written statement or in the application that he wants to prove a document for collateral purpose. When there is no such case put forward, the lower Court, assuming that it could be used for collateral purpose, has gone beyond the case of the parties. When the defendant has a definite case that possession passed on the basis of the sale deed, and if the sale could not be proved, to make use of the document for the purpose of possession, cannot be said as a collateral purpose. From a reading of the written statement, I understand that he claims possession as owner. When the ownership could not be had, when there is no registered deed and possession is also part of that transaction, it cannot be said that it is a collateral purpose as found by the lower Court. Whether any ground has been made out to admit the document ? It is true that a discretion has been exercised by the lower Court and in the normal circumstances, this Court should not interfere. But, when the discretion exercised has seriously affected the rights of the other party, this Court is entitled to invoke its jurisdiction to rectify that mistake. The reason mentioned is that he thought of confronting the plaintiff with the document, and when

Click Here to Read the rest of this document