Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 3289
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. THARANI, J.
Balamurugan - Appellant
Versus
Lakshmiammal - Respondent
Civil Revision Petition (NPD) No. 698 of 2015, Miscellaneous Petition No. 1 of 2015
Decided On : 23-10-2018
N. Mohan, Adv., R. Suriya Narayana, Adv.
The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff, and the admissibility of unregistered documents as collateral evidence can be determined during the trial.
Headnote:
Unregistered Partition Deed - Admissibility as Collateral Evidence - Evidence Act 1872, Section 49 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Proviso to Section 49 - [Evidence Act 1872, Section 49; Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Proviso to Section 49]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed a suit for permanent injunction, and the respondents filed a petition for rejection of an unregistered partition deed (Ex.A1). The trial Court allowed the rejection petition, leading to the present petition.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the unregistered and unstamped document can be accepted as collateral evidence, and its admissibility can be decided at the time of the trial. The trial Court's order was set aside, and the petitioners were given an opportunity to put forth their case.
Issues: Admissibility of unregistered partition deed as collateral evidence, burden of proof on the plaintiff, and objections raised by the respondents regarding the document's validity.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that the burden of proving the case is on the plaintiff, and the admissibility of the unregistered document can be determined during the trial. Mere marking of the document does not prove its validity, and objections can be raised through cross-examination.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was allowed, the trial Court's order was set aside, and no costs were imposed. The related Miscellaneous Petition was closed.
R. THARANI, J.
1. Heard Mr. N. Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.R.Suriya Narayana, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. This petition has been filed to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 09.02.2015 in I.A.No.563 of 2014 in O.S.No.79 of 2014 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Theni.
3. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs and the respondents herein are the defendants herein in the suit. The petitioners have filed a suit in O.S.No.79 of 2014 for a prayer of permanent injunction. The respondents filed a petition in I.A.No.563 of 2014 for rejection of Ex.A1 and the trial Court has allowed the petition. Against the order, the petitioners have filed the present petition.
4. On the side of the petitioners, it is stated that the document in dispute is Ex.A1, which is an unregistered partition deed and that the only reason for rejection of the document is that the document is a unregistered one and that even an unregistered and unstamped document can be entertained.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied on the Judgment passed by this Court in the case of Radha Ammal (Died) and Others v. Manthi Reddiar reported in, (2008) 8 MLJ 619, which reads as follows:
"Petition for rejection of documents in question tendered in evidence at the time of trial by defendants ? impugned order of Court below allowing petition- revision petition-rejection of documents had arisen only by fact that they are photo copies and therefore cannot be received in evidence-there is no merit in such a contention."
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied on the Judgment passed by this Court in the case of Durai @ Subrayan v. Anandan reported in,2010 1 MWN(Civ) 534, which reads as follows:
"Unregistered and unstamped sale deed-can be looked into to establish nature of possession, even if same is not admissible in evidence-in view of Proviso to Section 49, unregistered document can be received as evidence of any collateral transaction-document reciting delivery of possession does not require any registration."
7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied on the Judgment passed by this Court in the case of Muniappa Gounder v. P.Dhanasekaran reported in, (2015) 1 CTC 363, which reads as follows:
"Unregistered Partition deed sought to be relied upon by plaintiff only to prove a collateral issue, I.e., possession of property by plaintiff's father -said deed marked by trial Court-held, mere marking or admitting of document would not mean that same is accepted by Court-plaintiff in suit to duly prove document before Court-in instant case, marking of unregistered partition deed by trial Court for collateral purpose, upheld"
8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied on the Judgment passed by this Court in the case of Venkatasubramaniya Chettiyar (Died) and Others v. Perumal Chettiar and Others reported in, (2012) 3 CTC 160, which reads as follows:
"Unregistered partition deed could be looked into for collateral purpose of proving division in status and subsequent separate enjoyment of parties, in a suit for partition-trial Court was not correct in rejecting unregistered partition deed, under which properties were divided."
9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied on the Judgment passed by this Court in the case of S. Kaladevi v. V.R.Somasundaram and Others reported in, (2010) 4 MLJ 529, which reads as follows:
"Proviso, however, would show that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by 1908 Act or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to be registered may be received as evidence to the contract in a suit for specific performance."
10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied on the Judgment passed by this Court in the case of Kalaivani and Others v. J. Ramu and 8 Others reported in, (2010) 1 CTC 27, which reads as follows:
"At best document can be looked into for collateral purpose provided i
