Unregistered documents are not admissible for title claims but can be used to show familial relationships or status changes, crucial in specific performance cases under liberal pleading rules.

ORDER :

V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

1. This Civil Revision Petition arises against the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Krishnagiri, in I.A.No.10 of 2022 in O.S.No.88 of 2020, dated 19.10.2022.

2. O.S.No.88 of 2020 is a suit for specific performance of a contract of sale. In the said proceedings, the defendants 1 to 3 filed an application under Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to file an additional written statement to the suit. The reason for filing additional written statement was that the civil revision petitioner Mr.S.Gopi had got himself impleaded to the suit for specific performance and denied the title of defendants 1 to 3. Therefore, they wanted to project an unregistered deed recording the deliberations of a Panchayat held on 13.12.2002. It was on the basis of the Panchayat that defendants 1 to 3 obtained title to the property.

3. The plea of the civil revision petitioner was that in an earlier suit in O.S.No.19 of 2018, filed for declaration of title and for consequential relief, the very same document had been presented and rejected. That suit came to be dismissed as withdrawn on 24.11.2020. During the course of that proceeding, the unregistered Panchayat document dated 13.12.2002 was introduced as Ex.A2. The learned Trial Judge in that case had rejected the said document. According to the 4^th defendant, as the document had already been rejected, it is not open to the defendants 1 to 3 to introduce the said document again as their document in this suit by way of an additional written statement.

4. I heard Mr.G.Karthikeyan, Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.A.Jagadeeswari and Mr.R.Vasudevan for Mr.E.Kannadasan for the respective parties.

5. Mr.G.Karthikeyan argues that as the document had already been rejected by the Trial Court in O.S.No.19 of 2018, it is impermissible to receive the said document by way of additional written statement in the present suit. He pleads the learned Additional District Judge ought to have adopted the same logic and rejected the additional statement and the unregistered document.

6. I have gone through the records and I have carefully considered the submissions of Mr.G.Karthikeyan, Senior Counsel and Mr.R.Vasudevan.

7. The plea of defendants 1 to 3 is only to file additional written statement. Since the 4^th defendant – civil revision petitioner has created a cloud over the title of the defendants 1 to 3, they sought to protect the said document.

8. At the stage of Order VIII Rule 9 petition under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, a Court need not look into the merits of the plea. A party have to prove the pleas only at the time of trial. In fact, I have pointed out in C.R.P.No.3679 of 2023, the question of Court going into the issue of title in a suit for specific performance is alien to the proceeding.

9. The simple case of the plaintiff is that he had entered into an agreement with the defendants 1 to 3 and as the defendants are attempting to resile from the said agreement, he wants assistance of the Court to obtain a sale deed. In the said proceeding, the issue whether the defendants 1 to 3 have title to the property is absolutely irrelevant. This is because the suit for specific performance continues to be in the realm of the contract and title to an immovable property is dealt with under the Transfer of Property Act.

10. Be that as it may, as the defendants 1 to 3 want only to explain their possession, they have taken out an application under Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. A petition under Order VIII Rule 9 requires a liberal interpret