Possession being part of transaction document cannot be used for collateral purpose.

.1. This revision is filed under Art.227 of the Constitution of India, by the plaintiff in O.S.826 of 1985, on the file of District Munsif’ s Court, Poonamallee. Petitioner herein filed the suit to direct the respondent to deliver possession of the suit property and for consequential reliefs. In the plaint, it is alleged that the plaint schedule property is the ancestral property of Dharmalinga Naicker and his sons and they were residing in that property. For the purpose of meeting the marriage expenses of his daughter, Dharmalinga Naicker wantedto raise loan, and for the said purpose, he approached the defendant, who is a money lender. He wanted a sum of Rs.3,250. Since the defendant insisted on security and also wanted to enjoy the property in lieu of interest, possession was handed over to him. It is said that possession of the defendant is only as a charge-holder, and he was the mortgagee for all purposes. Since the defendant was having possession and was enjoying the property for the past more than eight years, if the amount is calculated as per Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, only a sum of Rs.650 is payable and the balance must be treated to have been discharged in view of the appropriation of the income. A lawyer’s notice was issued asking the defendant to surrender possession, which was not complied with. The suit was, therefore, filed for the reliefs stated above.

2. In the written statement filed by the respondent herein, he said that for meeting the marriage expenses of his daughter, late Dharmalinga Naicker executed a sale deed though it was unstamped or unregistered. It is his case that pursuant to that document, he obtained possession and he is in possession as owner. He also effected improvements to the suit property. It is his case that his possession as mortgagee as alleged by plaintiff is not true, and the sale was executed for valuable consideration, and for family necessity. He further says that the suit filed for recovery of possession without a prayer for setting aside the sale is not maintainable. He also pleaded that the age of the plaintiff is wrongly stated.

.3. On the above pleadings, parties went on trial. It is seen that both the plaintiff and defendant were examined, and the case was posted for arguments. When plaintiff was examined as P.W.1, he was confronted with a document alleged to have been executed in favour of defendant by Dharmalinga Naicker P.W.1 denied the execution of such a deed. Long thereafter, an application was filed by the respondent in I.A. No. 1103 of 1995 to excuse the delay in filing the document dated 23. 1975, referred to in the written statement. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, it was averred that Dharmalinga Naicker executed the said sale deed and it was for necessity and consideration. The plaintiff has not accepted the same and has given a different version about the circumstances under which the respondent came into possession. It is, therefore, alleged in the petition that he reserved the document to confront the plaintiff during the course of examination. But the plaintiff did not accept the same. Moreover, the document was liable for stamp duty and penalty, which was paid. Thereafter, when the document was about to be marked, petitioner raised objection for reception of the document. Therefore, defendant filed I.A. along with an affidavit for excusing the delay in filing the document.

4. A detailed counter affidavit was filed by the petitioner herein explaining as to why the document should not be admitted in evidence. He also contended that the document itself is concocted one and, therefore, invalid. He further said that the document is not stamped, nor was it registered, and no right could be claimed under that document by the respondent herein. He prayed for dismissal of the application.

5. By the impugned order, Lower Court found that the delay could be condoned and the document could be made use of for collateral purpose. In