COMMON ORDER

C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.1800 of 2019 has been filed against the order passed in I.A.No.5 of 2019 in O.S.No.44 of 2011 dated 24.04.2019, on the file of the learned District Munsif, Devakottai.

2.C.R.P.(PD)(MD)Nos.51 and 52 of 2020 was filed against the order passed in I.A.Nos.11 and 12 of 2019 in O.S.No.44 of 2011 dated 08.11.2019, on the file of the learned District Munsif, Devakottai.

3.The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and the respondents herein are the defendants 1 and 2 in the suit. The petitioner herein filed a suit in O.S.No.44 of 2011 for a prayer of declaration of title and for injunction. In that suit, the petitioner herein filed a petition in I.A.Nos.11 and 12 of 2019 and 5 of 2019 seeking permission to amend the suit, to re-open the trial and to mark a document dated 07.08.2002. All the petitions were dismissed by the trial Court. Against which, the petitioner has filed this revision petitions.

4.The brief substance of the application in I.A.No.5 of 2019 is as follows:

The petitioner is the husband of the plaintiff and the plaintiff was not able to understand the questions and answer properly at the time of trial and the petitioner was examined as P.W.1. The petition to receive document was allowed by this Court and the case was posted for filing additional proof affidavit. Even at the time of filing of the suit, the unregistered sale deed dated 07.08.2002 executed by the first defendant in favour of the husband of the plaintiff was filed as document no.1 along with the plaint itself. The document was mentioned in paragraph nos.6 and 7 of the plaint. That document was sent for expert opinion. The expert has given evidence in the case. In the letters prior and subsequent to 07.08.2002, it was mentioned that the suit property was purchased by the petitioner in the name of the first defendant. The letters were marked as evidence but the unregistered sale deed dated 07.08.2002, was not yet marked as a documentary evidence. Hence, permission has to be granted to mark that document.

5.The brief substance of the counter in I.A.No.5 of 2019 is as follows:

The document dated 07.08.2002, is a fraudulent document created by the plaintiff. In the cross examination, it was admitted that the plaintiff's father was not in India at the time of the execution of the document. The signature was sent for expert opinion and the expert has given his opinion that the signature is not that of the first defendant. The expert was examined as a witness and he deposed that the signature is not genuine and hence, the document could not be marked. The petitioner filed a petition for permission to pay the stamp duty and penality under Section 35 of Registration Act. Though the Court has ordered to pay the stamp duty etc., the petitioner has failed to pay the same. The alleged executor of the document, the first defendant was dead. The alleged purchaser, the plaintiff is mentally affected and the power agent of the plaintiff has deposed that he has no knowledge regarding the execution of the document. The document was alleged to have been executed in the year 2002 and was handed over to the power agent of the plaintiff only on 2004. Stamp duty and penality was not paid and the petition for payment of stamp duty comes to an end. The document was not properly stamped and registered. Already evidence on the side of the plaintiff was over and only to fill up the lacuna, this petition has been filed at the belated stage.

6.The brief substance of the applications in I.A.No.11 and 12 of 2019 is as follows:

The case was posted for arguments on 04.10.2019. The petitioner was advised to seek additional reliefs. The petition has filed a petition to reopen the trial. On 01.07.1992, the plaintiff's husband has purchased the property in the name of the first defendant. On 21.03.2011, the defendants 2 and 3 tried to create two settlement deeds as if they were executed by the first defendant and they are trying to alienate the suit property. The petitioner wa