Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 4531
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA
First
Versus
Second
O.A.No. 674 of 2011 in C.S.No. 518 of 2011
Decided On :Decided on : 21-11-2011
Headnote:
Interim Injunction - Forgery Allegations - Registration of Birth and Death Act, 1969 - [Order XIV, Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules, read with Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure] - [Registration of Birth and Death Act, 1969] - [Summary: The court considered the plaintiff's application for an interim injunction to restrain the defendant from relying on alleged forged and fabricated documents, including birth and death certificates and a will, in any proceedings. The court found that the suit was misconceived and not maintainable as the plaintiff should challenge the documents in the pending proceedings in the Malaysian Court, and not in the current court. The court also noted that the application was not bona fide and dismissed it with costs.]
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sought an interim injunction to restrain the defendant from relying on alleged forged and fabricated documents, including birth and death certificates and a will, in any proceedings pending disposal of the suit. The plaintiff claimed to be the wife of Arunachalam Chettiar and alleged that the defendant had filed a false suit to claim a piece of land bequeathed to the plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit was misconceived and not maintainable as the plaintiff should challenge the documents in the pending proceedings in the Malaysian Court, and not in the current court. The court also noted that the application was not bona fide and dismissed it with costs.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of alleged forged and fabricated documents, the jurisdiction of the court to grant an interim injunction, and the plaintiff's standing to challenge the documents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff's suit was not maintainable as the plaintiff should challenge the documents in the pending proceedings in the Malaysian Court, and not in the current court. The court also noted that the application was not bona fide and dismissed it with costs.
Final Decision: The application for interim injunction was dismissed with costs, as the court found that the suit was misconceived and not maintainable.
VINOD K. SHARMA., J.
1. This application, under Order XIV, Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules, read with Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been moved by the applicant/plaintiff, for grant of an order of interim injunction, restraining the first respondent/first defendant and all persons claiming through or under him from in any manner relying on the forged and fabricated documents viz.,
i. alleged Birth Certificate of the first respondent bearing B & D No.108/59, dated 09.07.1959, allegedly registered with the 2nd respondent under Registration No.450,
ii. alleged death certificate of C.T.Chidambaram Chettiar, dated 22.04.2002, bearing B
& D No.1806/1978, allegedly registered with the 2nd defendant under Registration No.24,
iii. alleged Will of Alagammai Achi, dated 09.07.2002, allegedly registered with the 3rd defendant as Document No.109 of 2002,
iv. alleged death certificate of C.T.Alagammai Achi, dated 22.12.2002, bearing B & D
No.17601/2002, allegedly registered with the 2nd respondent under Registration No.36 and
v. alleged certificate of legal heirs of C.T.Chidambaram Chettiar, dated 09.01.2003,
bearing Sl.No.3969/2003, allegedly issued by the 4th respondent, in any proceedings whatsoever and / or claiming any right through the said documents, pending disposal of the suit.
2. The applicant/plaintiff has filed a suit with the following prayer:-
"(a) Declaring that the (i) alleged Birth Certificate of the first defendant bearing B & D No.108/59, dated 09.07.1959, allegedly registered with the 2nd defendant under Registration No.450, (ii) alleged death certificate of C.T.Chidambaram Chettiar, dated 22.04.2002, bearing B & D No.1806/1978, allegedly registered with the 2nd defendant under Registration No.24, (iii) alleged Will of Alagammai Achi, dated 09.07.2002, allegedly registered with the Sub-Registrar, Perambur as Document No.109 of 2002, (iv) alleged death certificate of C.T.Alagammai Achi, dated 22.12.2002, bearing B & D No.17601/2002, allegedly registered with the 2nd defendant under Registration No.36 and (v) alleged certificate of legal heirs of C.T.Chidambaram Chettiar, dated 09.01.2003, bearing Sl.No.3969/2003, allegedly issued by the 4th defendant, as put forth and relied on by the 1st defendant and filed herein as Suit Document Nos.1 to 5, are forged and fabricated documents and null and void and non-est in law.
(b) Consequently granting permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant and all persons claiming through or under him from relying on the said documents viz., (i) alleged Birth Certificate of the first defendant bearing B & D No.108/59, dated
09.07.1959, allegedly registered with the 2nd defendant under Registration No.450, (ii) alleged death certificate of C.T.Chidambaram Chettiar, dated 22.04.2002, bearing B & D No.1806/1978, allegedly registered with the 2nd defendant under Registration No.24,
(iii) alleged Will of Alagammai Achi, dated 09.07.2002, allegedly registered with the 3rd defendant as Document No.109 of 2002, (iv) alleged death certificate of C.T.Alagammai
Achi, dated 22.12.2002, bearing B & D No.17601/2002, allegedly registered with the 2nd defendant under Registration No.36 and (v) alleged certificate of legal heirs of C.T.Chidambaram Chettiar, dated 09.01.2003, bearing Sl.No.3969/2003, allegedly
issued by the 4th defendant, in any manner and in any proceedings whatsoever and / or claiming any right through the said documents and
(c) Directing the first defendant to pay the costs of this suit."
3. The plaintiff claims to be wife of Arunachalam Chettiar, whereas the first defendant is C.T.Kannan. The plaintiff does not know the fathers name and his age. The second defendant is Corporation of Chennai. The third defendant is Sub-Registrar. The fourth defendant is Deputy Tahsildhar.
4. It is pleaded, that the plaintiff is owning properties in India and Malaysia, whereas some of the properties are acquired by the plaintiff by way of bequest made
