IMPORTANT POINT
Agreement to sell – Plaintiff, having lost suit, has no legitimate claim to retain title documents.

ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the learned Judge in Civil Miscellaneous No.20/2018, seeking return of the original documents produced by the petitioner-defendant and the original title documents produced by the respondent-plaintiff in O.S.No.62/2001.

2. The learned Judge partially allowed the civil miscellaneous petition, ordering the return of original documents i.e., Exs.D-1 and Ex.D-2 after obtaining certified copies. Aggrieved by the non-return of the original title documents produced by the respondent-plaintiff, the petitioner filed a review petition. The review petition was dismissed on the ground that the title documents were produced by the respondent-plaintiff and under Order XIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), documents admitted in evidence should be returned to the person who produced them in the suit. These two orders are now under challenge.

3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Perused the records.

4. The facts leading to the case are as under:

The respondent-plaintiff initiated a suit for specific performance in O.S.No.62/2001 based on an agreement to sell dated 09.03.1998. The respondent-plaintiff had collected the original title deed from the petitioner, which included the sale deed obtained by the petitioner’s maternal grandfather from the Co-operative Housing Society dated 14.08.1985, and an original Will dated 19.12.1986 executed by the maternal grandfather in favour of the petitioner.

The Trial Court, upon assessing the evidence, dismissed the suit for specific performance. The said judgment was upheld by this Court in RFA No.1005/2004. Following the dismissal, the petitioner sought the return of the original documents from the Trial Court. The learned Judge allowed the return of documents produced by the petitioner but declined to order the return of the registered sale deed and the Will.

5. The primary ground for the rejection of the petitioner’s application was that although the original title documents were produced by the respondent-plaintiff, they belong to the petitioner. It appears that the respondent-plaintiff handed over these title documents while executing the agreement to sell. Therefore, the petitioner contends that he has a legitimate claim to seek the return of these documents as the respondent-plaintiff’s suit for specific performance is dismissed.

6. On examining both the orders under challenge, the Trial Court’s view in rejecting the petitioner’s application based on the production of documents by the respondent-plaintiff is fundamentally flawed.

7. Though Order XIII Rule 9 of CPC contemplates that admitted documents shall be returned to the party who produced them, this does not bar a party from seeking the return of original documents even if they were not produced by such party. The provisions of Order XIII Rule 9 of CPC should not be narrowly interpreted. This Court recognizes the petitioner’s entitlement to these documents, despite their production by the respondent-plaintiff during the suit for specific performance.

8. The petitioner basis his application on his rightful ownership of the original documents. These documents pertain directly to the property and testamentary disposition of the petitioner’s grandfather.

9. The failure to return the original documents to the petitioner, who is legally entitled, carries significant consequences. It deprives the petitioner of vital, legal and proprietary evidence, potentially hindering his ability to manage, transfer, or assert rights over the property. The absence of these documents could result in substantial financial and administrative burdens, complicating property transactions and estate management. Additionally, withholding these documents violates the petitioner’s legal rights and procedural fairness as mandated by the Civil Procedure Code. It undermines the principles of justice, equity, and good conscience, leading to potential reputational dama