The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of following the procedure for deciding objections to admissibility of evidence as per the guidelines set by the Supreme Court.

1. The above revision is filed against the order dated 13.6.2000 made in O.S.No.1584 of 1992 wherein a varthamanam letter was sought to be marked as an exhibit through the first defendant, which was objected to by the plaintiffs and the objection was upheld thereby the first defendant was not allowed to mark the document. The said order of the trial Judge is tested before this Court in the present revision as to its correctness.

2. The brief facts of the case for the clarity are as follows:

Plaintiffs 1 and 2 and the first defendant are sons and the 2nd defendant is the daughter of one Ganga Naidu. They divided their property among themselves by a partition deed dated 21.3.1989. In the said partition, the father, Ganga Naidu was allotted 22 cents for his life. On the same day i.e. on 21.3.1989, his sons and the daughter of the said Ganga Naidu executed a varthamanam letter, whereby the said Ganga Naidu was permitted to alienate or encumber the property allotted to his share to meet out his medical expenses, if the same was not met out by his sons. The said Ganga Naidu sold the entire-extent of 22 cents allotted to him on 4.3.1989 pursuant to the varthamanam letter to the third defendant on 6.9.1990. When that being so, the plaintiffs Narayanasamy and Jagannathan, two sons of Ganga Naidu, on 10.3.1992, filed the suit for partition of the 22 cents, which was allotted to their father in the earlier partition deed dated 21.3.1999 and subsequently sold by him on 6.9.1990 to the third defendant. In the said suit, the varthamanam letter alleged to have been executed by all the sons and daughter of the said Ganga Naidu, was sought to be marked through the first defendant, who is also one of the sons of said Ganga Naidu besides the plaintiffs. That has been objected to by the plaintiffs on the ground that the document is an unregistered document and the said document is created only for the purpose of the suit and that if the said document is accepted, that would alter the very character of the partition deed dated 21.3.1989. On consideration, the learned trial Judge upheld the objection raised on behalf of the plaintiffs and held that if the varthamanam letter is allowed to be marked that would belittle ( ) the partition deed and accordingly, rejected the marking of the said document. The said order is now disputed in the present revision.

3. Mr. Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that this sort of rejection of the document from being marked at the threshold has been considered by the Supreme Court and the Apex Court deprecated the practice and concluded that generally any document, sought to be marked be allowed to be marked if the said document is relevant to the suit, subject to the objection, if any by the other side. The dispute as to the admissibility has to be decided only at the argument stage. He further argued that the entire sale which is in favour of the third defendant, the petitioner herein is based on the varthamanam letter, and if the same is not allowed to be marked, the third defendant cannot defend his case. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat and another, 2001 (3) SCC 1, in support of his contention.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the first defendant, through whom the varthamanam letter was sought to be marked, has not preferred the revision petition and the revision at the hands of the third defendant is not maintainable.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent further contended that the document under dispute creates a right in the property and as per law it requires registration. But the same is an unregistered one. It cannot be looked into and no amount of evidence could be let in to support the document. He sought support to the above contention to the judgment of this Court in A.C.Lakshmipathy and another