JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the judgment and Decree dated 31.03.2004 made in A.S.No.156 of 2003 on the file of the 7th Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai confirming the judgment and decree dated 08.08.2002 made in O.S.No.3831 of 2000 on the file of the 16th Assistant Judge, City Civil Judge, Chennai.)

Challenge in this Second Appeal is made to the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2004 passed in A.S.No.156 of 2003 on the file of the VII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai confirming the judgment and decree dated 08.08.2002 passed in O.S.No.3831 of 2000 on the file of the 16th Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai.

2. The second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law.

1. Whether the drawing of adverse inferences by the courts below in favour of the plaintiff on the basis of the missing pages in Ex.B4 is correct?

2. Whether the courts below are correct in passing a concurrent finding based on the Secretary's evidence alone when the primary evidence is available for the perusal and the same also disproves the case of the plaintiff?

3. Whether the courts below are correct in passing a finding which is in the nature of upholding the illegality performed by the plaintiff in preparing the fraudulent mark list and producing before the second respondent for admission into the college?

4. Whether the courts below have not committed error in decreeing the suit when the plaintiff is estopped from producing the certificate other than the one received by her as per Ex.B3?

5. Whether the Courts below are correct in not considering Ex.B3 and holding that the plaintiff is estopped from relying upon any other mark list other than the one reflected in Ex.B3?

3. Considering the scope of the issues involved between the parties as regards the subject matter lying in a narrow compass, it is unnecessary to dwell into the facts of case in detail.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the rankings in the trial court.

5. The suit has been laid by the plaintiff mainly for the relief of declaration that the higher secondary course certificate as described in the plaint issued to her by the first respondent, through the 4th defendant's school is a genuine document and for consequential mandatory injunction and other reliefs.

6. It is seen that the plaintiff based upon the mark certificate issued to her by the 4th defendant's school for the higher secondary course completed by her in the 4th defendant's school, joined B.Sc., Agriculture in the 5th defendant's University and while her curriculum was in progress in the abovesaid University, she had been issued with the memo informing that the certificate produced by her for securing admission in the University is a bogus one and accordingly directed her to give explanation for the same and when the plaintiff has presented her case that she had not produced any bogus certificate and the certificate produced by her is a valid and genuine certificate and the memo issued to her is without any basis, despite the same, according to the plaintiff, she has been dismissed from the college, where she had studied. Putting forth the case that without any basis, her certificate has been determined to be a bogus certificate by the defendants one way or the other on false allegations and accordingly, seeking appropriate reliefs, the plaintiff has come forward with the suit against the defendants.

7. The defendants have putforth the case that on a comparison of the original records available with them, noting that the certificate produced by the plaintiff for joining in the University is a bogus certificate and concocted by the plaintiff for securing admission in the University illegally and accordingly the plaintiff having failed to explain the same with reference to the memo issued qua the same, according to the defendants, they had taken proper action against the plaintiff, which does not call for any interference