Partly allowed

Vazhichal Thomas v. Prp Granites

Kerala HC5 Oct 2021OP(C)/1732/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Joint judgment on two original petitions. Ordered setting aside lower court order refusing to admit lease deeds without hearing both sides, directing trial court to decide admissibility during trial. Directed trial court to dispose of original suit within three months.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 08.06.2018 rejecting proposed exhibits set aside; both parties granted liberty to raise contentions on admissibility; trial court directed to decide admissibility during trial after hearin

Vazhichal Thomas Vs Prp Granites — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 13TH ASWINA, 1943

¶5

OP(C) NO. 1732 OF 2018

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08.06.2018 IN OS 1143/2014 OF
PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT NEYYATTINKARA,

¶7

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

VAZHICHAL THOMAS
S/O.CHELLAPPAN,RESIDING AT T.S.GARDEN,
VAZHICHAL OTTASHEKHARAMANGALAM VILLAGE,
KATTAKKADA TALUK.

¶10

BY ADVS.
SRI.L.MOHANAN
SMT.LIGEY ANTONY

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1PRP GRANITES,
KEELAVALAVU VILLAGE, MELUR TALUK,
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING
PARTNER,P.PALANICHAMY, S/O.PINNATHEVAR,
MADURAI DISTRICT,TAMILNADU - 625 104.

¶13

2S. JEEVANANDAN
S/O.SETHUAMBALAN,NO.14, VADAMPATTI TALUK,
KEELAVALAVU VILLAGE,MELUR TALUK, TAMILNADU,
KEELVALAVU P.O. - 625 102.

¶14

BY ADV.
SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI FOR R1

¶15

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.10.2021 a/w O.P(C)No.1261/2021, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

O.P(c)Nos.1732/18 & 1261/21

¶17

¶18

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶19

PRESENT

¶20

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU TUESDAY, THE 5^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 13TH ASWINA,

¶21

1943

¶22

OP(C) NO. 1261 OF 2021

¶23

OS NO.1143/2014 OF I ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶24

PETITIONER/1ST DEFENDANT:

¶25

M/S.P.R.P. GRANITES
KEELAVALAVU VILLAGE, MELUR TALUK,
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM,REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING PARTNER-P.PALANICHAMY,
AGED 72 YEARS,
S/O.PINNA THEVAR, MADURAI DISTRICT, TAMIL
NADU STATE.

¶26

BY ADV S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI

¶27

RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF AND 2ND DEFENDANT:

¶28

1 VAZHICHAL THOMAS, AGED 48 YEARS S/O.CHELLAPPAN, T.S.GARDEN, VAZHICHAL, VAZHICHAL DESOM, OTTASEKHARAMANGALAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695125.

¶29

2S.JEEVANANDAN,
S/O.SETHUMBALAN, NO.14, VACHAMPATTY,
KEELAVALAVU VILLAGE, MELUR TALUK,
MADURAI DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU STATE-625102.
BY ADVS.
LIGEY ANTONY
L.MOHANAN

¶30

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.10.2021, ALONG WITH OP(C).1732/2018, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

O.P(c)Nos.1732/18 & 1261/21

¶32

¶33

K.BABU, J.

¶34

=========================== OP(C) Nos.1732 of 2018 & 1261 of 2021

¶35

=========================== Dated this the 5^th day of October, 2021

¶36

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶37

The petitioner in O.P.No.1732 of 2018 is the plaintiff in O.S.No.1143 of 2014 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Neyyattinkara. The respondents in the O.P are the defendants in the original suit.

¶38

The petitioner in O.P.No.1261 of 2021 is the first defendant in the original suit. Respondents in this OP are the plaintiff and the 2^nd defendant respectively in the original suit.

¶39

The plaintiff has instituted O.P.No.1732 of 2018 to set aside Ext.P2 order by which the learned Munsiff refused to admit in evidence, two lease deeds stated to have been executed in favour of the plaintiff by the 2^nd defendant on behalf of the 1^st defendant.

¶40

In O.P.No.1261 of 2021, the petitioner/the 1^st defendant seeks a direction to the Court below for the early disposal of the original suit.

¶41

The plaintiff instituted O.S.No.1143 of 2014 before the Munsiff Court, Neyyattinkara seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants. The plaintiff claims that the

¶42

O.P(c)Nos.1732/18 & 1261/21

¶43

¶44

plaint schedule property was delivered to his possession as per Ext.P1 lease deed dated 27.12.2001. He further pleaded that on 19.10.2014, the defendants attempted to evict him from the plaint schedule property and to commit waste therein.

¶45

The defendants resisted the claim of the plaintiff, by denying the execution of the lease deeds in question.

¶46

The case was listed for trial by placing the same in the special list before the Court below. During the course of trial, the plaintiff tendered the two lease deeds afore mentioned to be marked as Exts.A1 and A2.

¶47

The learned Munsiff rejected those Exhibits (proposed as Exts. A1 and A2) on the ground that the documents were not sufficiently stamped. The Court below held that the documents are inadmissible in evidence as they were not registered.

¶48

Feeling aggrieved by the order of the learned Munsiff refusing to mark the lease deeds proposed to be marked as Exts.A1 and A2, the petitioner has preferred O.P.No.1732 of 2018.

¶49

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶50

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner required to mark the two lease deeds only for collateral purpose and the Court below ought to have marked the

¶51

O.P(c)Nos.1732/18 & 1261/21

¶52

¶53

same.

¶54

The learned counsel for the respondents, per contra, submitted that the documents proposed to be marked as Exts.A1 and A2 being lease deeds for a period exceeding one year, they ought to have been compulsorily registered. The learned counsel contended that the lease deeds are not admissible in evidence and the Court below has rightly rejected those documents and refused to admit them in evidence.

¶55

I am of the opinion that, as the Court below is proceeding with the trial of the matter, this Court is not in a position to go into the merits of the decision taken by the Court below in this interlocutory stage.

¶56

In Mallesh V. Narendar and others [(2016) 1 SCC 670], the Apex Court held that the admissibility, reliability and registrability of the documents shall be considered independently only at the time of hearing of the trial and not prior thereto.

¶57

In view of the above settled position, this Court is of the view that in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court cannot record a finding as to the admissibility, reliability and registrability of the documents proposed to be marked in evidence before the Court below.

¶58

The learned counsel for the petitioner in O.P.No.1732/2018 submitted that sufficient opportunity was not

¶59

O.P(c)Nos.1732/18 & 1261/21

¶60

¶61

given by the Court below to the plaintiff to canvass arguments on the question of admissibility of the documents.

¶62

In view of the submission that no sufficient opportunity was given to the plaintiff to raise arguments on the question of admissibility of the documents, the order dated 08.06.2018 passed by the Court below rejecting the proposed Exts. A1 and A2 is set aside. Both sides are at liberty to raise their contentions on the question of admissibility of those documents before the trial court. All questions with regard to the admissibility, reliability and registrability of the documents shall remain open. The learned Munsiff will decide on the admissibility of the proposed documents during the course of trial after affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to both sides.

¶63

In O.P.No.1261 of 2021, the defendant No.1 has prayed for speedy disposal of the original suit. The suit is of the year 2014. Having regard to the prolonged pendency of the matter, the Court below is directed to dispose of the original suit within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶64

With these observations, the original petitions are disposed of.

¶65

Sd/K.BABU, JUDGE

¶66

lgk

¶67

O.P(c)Nos.1732/18 & 1261/21

¶68

¶69

APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1732/2018

¶70

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶71

EXHIBIT P1COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS 1143/2014 ON
THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT,
NEYYATTINKARA.
EXHIBIT P2COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF PW1
CONTAINING THE ORDER CHALLENGED IN
OS.1143/2014 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF
COURT, NEYYATTINKARA.

¶72

O.P(c)Nos.1732/18 & 1261/21

¶73

¶74

APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1261/2021

¶75

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶76

Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN
O.S.NO.1143/2014 OF ADDL.MUNSSIF
COURT-I,NEYYATTINKARA.
Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT
FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN
O.S.NO.1143/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE
COURT OF ADDL.MUNSIFF,NEYYATTINKARA.

Vazhichal Thomas v. Prp Granites

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vazhichal Thomas v. Prp Granites

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhaskaran, S/O. Raman, Vs S.I. of Police and Another

Baburaj Vs State of Kerala

Sobhana Vs State of Kerala

Geethu Paul Vs Jinu Chacko

Riya M.B. Vs Anoop Davis

Vasu Vs Soni