C.R.P. Nos.196 & 197 of 2020 & CMP No.1078 of 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 10.10.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA

C.R.P. Nos.196 & 197 of 2020

& CMP No.1078 of 2020

1. Balachander

2. Saravangniya

... Petitioners in both petitions

Vs.

1.Kaliyaperumal

2. Rajasekaran

3. Muthukumaraswamy

4. Sarala Muthukumaraswamy

... Respondents in both petitions

Common Prayer: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India against the fair and decretal orders dated 29.01.2019

made in I.A.Nos.269 of 2017 and 363 of 2018 in O.S. No.196 of 2016

respectively, on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Tindivanam.

In both the Petitions

For Petitioners

: Mr. D. Ravichander

For Respondents

: Parties name printed. No appearance.

1/10

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

C.R.P. Nos.196 & 197 of 2020 & CMP No.1078 of 2020

COMMON ORDER

These revision petitions are filed against the fair and decretal

orders dated 29.01.2019 made in I.A.No.269 of 2017 and I.A. No.363 of

2018 in O.S. No.196 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Subordinate

Court, Tindivanam.

2. The revision petitioners are the defendants 3 & 4 in

O.S.No.196/2016 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court,

Tindivanam. The respondents 1 & 2 /plaintiffs filed the suit against the

revision petitioners/defendants 3 & 4 and respondents 3 & 4/defendants 1

& 2 for a Permanent injunction restraining the defendants in the suit to

not vacate them except under due process of law.

3. The revision petitioners filed a written statement and

thereafter both the parties went for trial after settlement of issues. The

first plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and marked two unregistered

lease deeds dated 28.08.1997 and 20.02.2010 as Ex.A1 & Ex.A12

2/10

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

C.R.P. Nos.196 & 197 of 2020 & CMP No.1078 of 2020

respectively. Both the lease deeds were for a period of 10 years from the

date of lease. When the matter was posted for cross examination of

P.W.1, the revision petitioners filed Interlocutory Applications in

I.A.No.269 of 2017 and I.A. No.363 of 2018 to eschew Ex.A12 and

Ex.A1. The respondents 1 & 2 /plaintiffs filed a counter contending that

the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property and in order to prove

their possession, the unregistered lease deeds have been marked as Ex.A1

and Ex.A12. It was also contended that when objections were not raised

at the time of marking of these documents, the revision

petitioners/defendants cannot now seek for eschewing the same. After full

contest, the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam, dismissed

both the applications vide his orders dated 29.01.2019 on the following

grounds:

i. The revision petitioners/defendants did not raise any objection at

the time of marking Ex.A1 and Ex.A12.

ii. An unstamped instrument once admitted in evidence cannot be

called in question at any stage of the suit proceedings on the

3/10

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

C.R.P. Nos.196 & 197 of 2020 & CMP No.1078 of 2020

ground that the instrument was not duly stamped.

iii. An unstamped document even if admitted in evidence cannot be

acted upon by the Court by virtue of Sections 35 and 36 of the

Indian Stamp Act.

iv. Merely because Ex.A1 and Ex.A12 are marked on the side of the

plaintiffs, the same cannot be taken into consideration as proof and

only after full fledged trial, the nature and the execution of the

documents can be considered.

4. Challenging the said orders, the present Civil Revision

Petitions are filed.

5. Heard Mr. D. Ravichander, learned counsel appearing for the

revision petitioners. No representation on behalf of the respondents.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners

contended that objection as to the admissibility of a document can be

4/10

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

C.R.P.