Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 3502
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.T. ASHA, J.
Elango and Anr – Petitioners
Versus
Kalaiselvan and Anr. – Respondents
C.R.P.No.717 of 2025, C.M.P.No.4087 of 2025
Decided On : 27-02-2025
For the Petitioner: Mr. Gururaj for Mr. D. Baskar
For the Respondents: Mr. T. Saikrishnan.
Parties must be given a fair opportunity to present their case, and courts should avoid unnecessarily prolonging proceedings.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 - Reopening of evidence - The defendants challenged the order rejecting their application to reopen evidence after it was closed by the court without verifying if they had further witnesses. The court found that the defendants should be given an opportunity to substantiate their defense, considering the prolonged nature of the proceedings. (Paras 1, 9, 10)
(B) Right to Fair Trial - Every party must be given sufficient opportunity to prove their case, with the caveat that proceedings should not be unnecessarily delayed. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession, claiming ownership through a registered sale deed. The defendants contested the sale and claimed possession based on a forged will. The defendants sought to reopen evidence after it was closed by the court.
Findings of Court:
The court allowed the civil revision petition, directing the examination of the defendants' witnesses and completion of evidence by a specified date.
Issues: The main issue was whether the defendants were denied a fair opportunity to present their case after the court closed the evidence without inquiry.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of allowing parties to substantiate their defense while balancing the need to avoid unnecessary delays in proceedings.
Result: Civil Revision Petition allowed with directions.
ORDER :
(P.T. ASHA, J.)
The defendants 1 and 2 are the revision petitioners before this Court. They seek to challenge the order dated 08.11.2024 in I.A.No.266 of 2023 in O.S.No.242 of 2017 in and by which their application to reopen the evidence on the side of the defendants 1 and 2 has been rejected.
2.The facts are set out briefly herein below:-
The plaintiffs had filed the suit O.S.No.242 of 2017 on the file of the Sub Court, Cuddalore, seeking declaration of their title to the suit schedule property and for recovery of possession from the defendants and also to declare the Will dated 11.01.2010 as null and void ab-initio and non-est in the eyes of law. The suit property originally belonged to one Navaneethammal from whom the plaintiffs along with Lakshmiammal had purchased the property for a valuable consideration on 25.05.1994 under a registered sale deed. From the date of the purchase they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. Meanwhile the defendants 1 and 3 had taken away the original sale deed from the second plaintiff on 25.05.1994 constraining second plaintiff to lodge a complaint against the defendants before the Thirupapuliyur Police Station. They had instigated the plaintiff's vendor Navaneethammal to file a suit O.S.No.815 of 1996 for a bare injunction. The said suit was dismissed on 17.02.1999. Suppressing the above decree Navaneethammal filed yet another suit O.S.No.339 of 2006 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Cuddalore, once again for an injunction. After an elaborate trial the suit was dismissed on 30.11.2007 and the further appeal filed by Navaneethammal in A.S.No.13 of 2008 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Court, Cuddalore was also dismissed. Thereafter, the third defendant had filed a suit O.S.No.133 of 2011 against the plaintiffs on the basis of a forged and concocted settlement deed dated 31.10.2008 which had been cancelled on 21.07.2009. The plaintiffs had filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 to reject the said plaint and the same was also rejected. Against this there was no further appeal.
3.It is further case of the plaintiffs that Navaneethammal was permitted to continue in the possession of the property till her death on 07.12.2015. After the death of Navaneethammal, Lakshmiammal and Chandra, the mother of first plaintiff were in possession of the property. Defendants 1 and 2 trespassed into the property in the first week of January 2016 and concocted and forged Will dated 11.01.2010. The plaintiffs would further submit that the criminal complaints are pending against defendants 1 and 2 as defendants are in illegal possession of the property. Lakshmiammal had sold her 1/3rd share in favour of the first plaintiff in respect of the suit property under a registered sale deed dated 24.11.2016. The ownership of the plaintiffs has been declared by the Additional Subordinate Court, Cuddalore in A.S.No.13 of 2008. Therefore, the plaintiffs have come forward with the suit in question.
4.The first and second defendants have filed a written statement admitting the fact that the property belonged to Navaneethammal but however denying the sale of the property by Navaneethammal to Lakshmiammal. The defendants would submit that this sale deed is a concocted and a forged one. Navaneethammal had three daughters and a son. The third defendant is the son of Navaneethamal and Chandra, Lakshmi and Kasthuri are her three daughters. The second plaintiff is the husband of Kasthuri. First plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 are the sons of Chandra. The purchase of the share of Lakshmiammal is also denied. The defendants would submit that possession of the property continued with Navaneethammal till her death and neither the plaintiffs nor Lakshmiammal have taken possession of the suit property. It is their case that Naveethammal who is in need of money had appointed her widow daughter Lakshmi as power gent vide power of attorney deed dated 21.04.2005. Since the sale of the house
