2023 Supreme(Mad) 616
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.
Deivalakshmi & Another - Appellantss
Versus
Anitha & Another - Respondents
C.R.P. No. 312 of 2021 & C.M.P. No. 2717 of 2021
Decided On : 30-03-2023
For the Petitioners:V. Balamurugan, Advocate. For the Respondents:N. Manokaran, Advocate.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of examining witnesses to uncover fraud and determine the authenticity of documents in a property dispute.
Headnote:
Fraud - Partition Suit - N/A - The court discussed the provisions related to fraud, examination of witnesses, and the veracity of documents in the context of a partition suit. The court emphasized the importance of examining witnesses to uncover fraud and determine the authenticity of documents in a property dispute.
Fact of the Case:
The suit was filed for partition and separate possession of the suit properties. The plaintiff filed an application to examine witnesses to prove fraud committed by the defendants in depositing sale proceeds in the name of the plaintiff and her grandmother. The defendants resisted the application, stating that it was belated and lacked sufficient cause.
Finding of the Court:
The Trial Court allowed the application to examine witnesses, and the Civil Revision Petition filed by the defendants was dismissed by the Court.
Issues: The main issue was the admissibility of the application to examine witnesses after the completion of pleadings and the introduction of new facts. The defendants also contested the validity of the documents and the right to examine bank officials and birth and death officers.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that examining witnesses from the Cooperative Bank was necessary to uncover the fraud committed by the defendants. It also emphasized the importance of examining birth and death officers to verify the authenticity of documents.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed, and the application to examine witnesses was allowed by the Court.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer:Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order in I.A.No.2 of 2019 in O.S.No.354 of 2014 dated 21.11.2019 on the file of the I Additional Sub Court, Erode.)
1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 21.11.2019 passed by the Learned I Additional Sub Judge, Erode in I.A.No.2 of 2019 in O.S.No.354 of 2014.
2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioners are as follows:
i) The petitioners and 2ndrespondent herein are the defendants in the suit in O.S.No.354 of 2014. The suit was filed for partition and separate possession of the suit properties. The defendants filed written statement in the suit and thereafter, 1st respondent / plaintiff filed I.A.No.2 of 2019 to examine the Secretary of Nasiyanur Agricultural Co-operative Society and the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Erode, to mark certain documents through them.
ii) It was stated in the application that the 1st and 2nd defendants are the sisters of the plaintiff''s father and the 3rd defendant is the sister of the plaintiff. The suit property is belonging to both plaintiff and defendants. They engaged in the sale of the said property through Tulasimani who is the husband of the 2nd defendant. He is an educated person in their family and also has a good job. At the time of sale of the above properties, he was working as a Secretary in Nasiyanur Primary Agricultural Cooperative Bank. He opened savings accounts in the said bank in the name of the plaintiff, defendants and in the name of his family. He has overstated the age of the plaintiff in the above savings accounts.
iii) During the year 2003, when he had deposited the sale consideration, he deposited less amount in the name of the plaintiff, her grandmother Sellammal, 1st respondent and 3rd respondent and more amount in the name of Tulasimani, his wife 2 nd respondent and her children. In this regard, if the manager of the said bank is interrogated and documents are filed, the details of the fraud committed by the 2nd respondent and her husband will be known to the Court. For the above reason, it is necessary and reasonable to grant permission to the plaintiff to examine the Secretary and Manager of Nasiyanur Co-operative Bank as witnesses along with the documents. When the sister of the plaintiff, 3rd respondent, complained to the higher authority of the said bank, they told to her that they would hand over the said documents if they receive a summon from the court and they have given letters in this regard. Therefore, it is necessary and justifiable to issue an order to investigate them.
iv) Further, Erode Municipal Birth and Death Officers have issued the certificate only after examining the relevant documents regarding plaintiff''s birth. The plaintiff can prove her case only if the Court orders them to testify with relevant documents provided by them of correct age. Otherwise, she will suffer a lot of trouble and loss. Therefore, she prays that the Court may order the witnesses found in the petition to be examined as witnesses on her behalf in the said original case to bring the documents and to issue summons to them.
3. The petitioners / defendants 1 and 2 have resisted the application by stating that it is not true that they are the siblings of the plaintiff''s father. The 1st defendant has nothing to do with this case. It is not valid in law to add a person who was not a party to the original suit and mention that she has a share in the said suit property without any explanation as to how she is involved in the said suit. Also, the documents sought in the petition have nothing to do with this case and no one has the right to ask the financial details of others in the bank and such filing of documents is not legally valid. The plaintiff has procured and filed the document without mentioning her name in the documents with the Birth