Dismissed

Viruthambal v. Selvaraj

Madras HC3 Feb 2015CRP/234/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging an order allowing a third defendant to produce belated documents. The Court found no reason to interfere, noting that mere marking of documents does not establish title and directing the Trial Court to dispose of the suit within three months.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed; Trial Court directed to dispose of the suit within three months; No costs.

Viruthambal Vs Selvaraj — Property and Title | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 03.02.2015

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM

¶6

C.R.P.(PD) NO.234 OF 2015 AND M.P.NO.1 OF 2015

Viruthambal

... Petitioner

Vs.

Selvaraj ... Respondent

¶11

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 01.08.2014 made in I.A.No.533 of 2014 in O.S.No.215 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Chengam.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Munuswamy

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated

¶15

01.08.2014 passed in I.A.No.533 of 2014 in O.S.No.215 of 2008 by the learned Principal District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Chengam.

¶16

2.The petitioner had instituted the suit in O.S.No.215 of 2008 on

¶17

¶18

the file of the Principal District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Chengam, against the respondent and two others praying for declaration of her right over the suit property and for consequential permanent injunction. The defendants have been contesting the suit.

¶19

3.The respondent / third defendant filed an application in I.A.No.533 of 2014 under Order VIII Rule 3(A) of the Code of Civil Procedure to receive the documents stating that he could not produce the documents earlier and they are vital documents to decide the suit. The petitioner objected the application stating that he is only a purchaser and he has not entered with any lease agreement. It is further contended that the documents produced by the third defendant was already marked in the suit. The learned Principal District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Chengam allowed the application on 01.08.2014.

¶20

4.Aggrieved by the order dated 01.08.2014, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

¶21

5.Mr.C.Munuswamy, learned counsel for the petitioner has

¶22

submitted that the purchase made by the respondent is hit by Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act and he could not claim any right over the suit property.

¶23

It is further submitted that the respondent has not assigned any reason to

¶24

¶25

produce the documents in the belated stage.

¶26

6.It is seen from the records that the petitioner has filed the suit

¶27

for declaration of her title over the suit property and for permanent injunction. The respondent / third defendant has disputed the title claimed by the plaintiff in their written statement. The third defendant wanted to mark the sale deed, patta and kist receipts to establish his right over the suit property. The Trial Court, having satisfied with the case of the third defendant and to afford an opportunity to the defendants, has allowed the application. Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned in this Civil Revision Petition.

¶28

7.In the result, this Civil Revision petition is dismissed. However, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is settled law that mere marking of the documents will not establish the title of the parties. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶29

03.02.2015

¶30

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No TK

¶31

K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.

The Principal District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Chengam.

¶36

C.R.P.(PD) NO.234 OF 2015

¶37

03.02.2015

Viruthambal v. Selvaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Viruthambal v. Selvaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K. Kanagaraj Vs P. Pappathi

The Anthiyur Town Panchayat Vs G. Arumugam Deceased Sengotti

Prabavathi Vs the Joint Sub Registrar No. 1

Lakshmanan Vs Ct Selvam @ Tamilselvam

P.Senthilnathan Vs Periyasamy,Periyammal(Died)

Pullaiyannan Vs Kunjanna Gounder @