1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved on : 07.03.2022

Pronounced on :25.03.2022

Coram

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

C.R.P.PD.No.945 of 2017

and

CMP.No.4717 of 2017

Saritha

... 7^th Respondent / 7^th Defendant / Petitioner

v.

1.M.A.Shanmugham

2.Pulli Gounder @ Vella Gounder (died)

3.Kannammal @ Kaliammal

4.Palanisamy

5.Sundarasu

6.Parvathy

7.Ravi (died)

... Respondents 1 to 6 / Defendants 1 to 6 / Respondent 2 to 7

8.Sathamani

9.Papaathi

R8 and R9 brought on record as Lrs of the deceased R2 viz., Pulli

Gounder alias Vella Gounder vide Court order dated 23.02.2022

made in CMP.No.13819, 13824 and 13829 of 2021 in CRP.No.

945 of 2017

10.Kanagaraj

11.Dhanam

R10 and R11 brought on record as Lrs of the deceased R7 viz., Ravi

vide Court order dated 23.02.2022 made in CMP.No.14947 of 2021

in CRP.No.945 of 2017.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 03.01.2017 made in

I.A.No.186 of 2015 in O.S.No.138 of 2009 on the file of the District

Munsif Court, Paramathy.

For Petitioner

..

Mr.L.Thirumalaisamy

For R1

..

Mr.C.Munusamy

ORDER

The 7^th defendant in O.S.No.138 of 2009 on the file of the District

Munsif Court, Paramathy is the revision petitioner herein. O.S.No.138 of

2009 had been filed by the 1^st respondent herein / plaintiff, seeking

permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein from interfering

with peaceful possession of the suit schedule property and for costs of

the suit.

2.The suit schedule property is vacant land measuring 2.29 acres

together with easementary rights for movement of men, animals, vehicles

and is situated in S.No.229/1 in Kupperikapalayam Village in Paramathy,

Namakkal District. The plaintiff, had claimed right to enjoy the said land

to the execlusion of the defendants, on the basis of an unregistered and

unstamped Muchalika dated 15.08.2008 which family arrangement had

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

3

been entered into among the plaintiff and the 1^st, 2^nd and 5^th defendants

before the Village Panchayat. However, the patta for the suit schedule

land stood in the joint names of the plaintiff and the 1^st and 7^th

defendants. The 7^th defendant was also the beneficiary of two sale deeds

dated 24.09.2008 and 26.09.2008 executed by the 2^nd defendant and by

the 5^th and 6^th defendants respectively.

3.The 7^th defendant had filed written statement in the suit

questioning the right title and interest of the plaintiff over the suit

schedule property.

4.Let me not enter into a detailed discussion on the aspects raised

in the genealogy of the parties and the disputes therein.

5.Issues were framed and parties were invited to adduce evidence.

At that time, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.138 of 2009, under Section 151

CPC seeking permission to mark as an exhibit, the unstamped and

unregistered Muchalika dated 15.08.2008. It was stated in the affidavit

filed in support of the said application that since 15.08.2008 was a

national holiday, the document though executed could not be presented

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

4

for registration. It was also stated that the plaintiff did not know that the

document required registration.

6.However, the document is essential to decide the issues in the

suit and it was also stated that the plaintiff was prepared to pay the

penalty on the stamp duty and therefore sought permission to mark the

said document as an exhibit during trial.

7.The 7^th defendant filed a counter denying the very execution of

the document on 15.08.2008 or on any other date. It was also stated that

the plaintiff was a Court bird and knew the intricacies of judicial

proceedings and therefore cannot plead ignorance that the said document

required registration. It was also stated that mere payment of penalty

towards the stamp