Dismissed

G.Rama Rajalakshmi v. M.Sampath Kumar

Madras HC19 Dec 2016CRP/455/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This civil revision petition was dismissed as the High Court found no fatal illegality in the lower court's order permitting the summons of a police document. The court held the document's evidentiary value would be determined after the trial and stayed the production until objections were marked post-trial.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed; trial court directed to complete trial within three months after document production; liberty given to raise objections on marking after trial.

G.Rama Rajalakshmi Vs M.Sampath Kumar — Property and Title | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUURE AT MADRAS

¶3

RESERVED ON : 09.08.2016

¶4

PRONOUNCED ON: 19.12.2016

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN

¶7

CRP(PD)No.455 of 2012

and

M.P.No.1 of 2012

G.Rama Rajalakshmi

.. Petitioner

-vs-

M.Sampath Kumar

.. Respondent

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order and decreetal order dated 21.11.2011 passed in I.A.No.728 of 2011 in O.S.No.1842 of 2005, on

¶16

the file of the III Additional District Munsif of Coimbatore and prays for setting aside the same.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.V.V.Sairam

¶18

For Respondent : Mr.C.R.Prasannan

¶19

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The plaintiff is the Civil Revision Petitioner before this Court. Challenging the order passed in I.A.No.728 of 2011 in O.S.No.1842 of 2005 dated 21.11.2011 by the learned III Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore, rejecting the petition filed under Rule 75 of Civil Rules of Practice for summoning the Inspector of Police (Law and Order), B-7 Police Station to produce the documents.

¶22

2.The case of the plaintiff is that the suit schedule of property described in the schedule was originally purchased as a vacant house site by one Late N.Sakunthala by way of a registered Sale Deed dated 24.11.1968 in Document No.4051 of 1968, on the file of Registrar of Coimbatore.

¶23

3.After purchasing the suit schedule of property, the said Late N.Sakunthala has developed and constructed the building, in the suit schedule of property and thereafter the said Sukunthala was died intestate and leaving behind her only daughter Mrs.K.Girija also died on 13.03.2005. The plaintiff also states that there was no issues of her own and during her life time, she adopted the plaintiff, who is her cousin, as her daughter, since adoption of the plaintiff and the

¶24

¶25

deceased Sakuntala and the deceased K.Girija were lived as mother and daughter. In fact, the said Girija has been imparting education and other basic necessities to the plaintiff were always been showering love and affection on her as her natural daughter. This was continued till the marriage of the plaintiff.

¶26

4.During the life time of the said Girija, the Will dated 06.03.2005 was executed in favour of the plaintiff thereby making the plaintiff as absolute owner of the suit property. Though, the defendant has no way connected to the suit property as claiming the ownership of the property. Therefore, the plaintiff has approached the learned District Munsif Court, Coimbatore and filed the suit for declaration and for permanent injunction.

¶27

5.On receipt of the summon, the defendant appeared through his Advocate and filed the written statement stating that though the suit property consisting of two portions and one portion K.Girija lead her life time, until her demise and another portion, the plaintiff has permitted the defendant M.Sampath Kumar to stay by the said K.Girija in another portion and the defendant also denied the execution of Will in favour of the plaintiff. While pendency of the suit, the defendant

¶28

¶29

has filed I.A.No.778 of 2011 with a prayer to grant leave to summon the Inspector of Police (Law and Order), B7 Police Station to produce the documents listed in the petition in I.A.No.778 of 2011. The defendant further stated that the plaintiff has produced the bills which was not admitted by the defendant. The defendant also stated that already a complaint was alleged to the Inspector of Police (Law and Order), B7 Police Station. The plaintiff’s husband and the deceased mother K.Girija appeared before the enquiry and they voluntarily delivered a letter to B-3, Puliakulam Police Station on 26.03.2015 in F.I.R.No.35 of 2005, now the said letter is under the custody of the B7 Police Station and it is an important legal documents and constitute evidence under law. Therefore, the petitioner/defendant sought for permission is granted to summon the Inspector of Police (Law and Order) B7 Police Station to produce the said documents and to give evidence in O.S.No.1842 of 2005.

¶30

6.A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent/plaintiff stating that the petitioner/defendant has not come before this Court with clean hands, the documents are sought to be summoned are legally barred from being admitted as evidence under the Evidence Act. Since the said documents were admittedly executed before the

¶31

¶32

Police Officer, they cannot be produced as evidence in this case. Moreover the said documents are not relevant to the facts of the present case and the petition has been filed by the petitioner/defendant only to delay and defeat justice. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition.

¶33

7.Considering both side arguments, the learned Judge allowed the application in the interest of justice, directing the Inspector of Police (Law and Order) B7 Police Station to produce the documents and hence the said Court, the petitioner/defendant has made sufficient cause for allowing the petition. Challenging the said order, the petitioner/plaintiff has filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

¶34

8.Heard Mr.V.V.Sairam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.C.R.Prasannan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶35

9.Though the petitioner/plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration and for permanent injunction, and both the parties are bound to prove their case on the proper documentary evidence and the evidence of the witnesses.

¶36

¶37

10.The learned Judge has extracted the portion of the evidence given by the PW1 in which in PW1 the plaintiff herein has stated as follows:-

¶38

vGjp itf;fnt ,y;iy vd;why; rhpay;y gpujpthjp vd; tPl;ow;F te;J vd;dplk; vd; kfs; kUkfdplk;

¶39

Mfpnahh;fSf;fpilapy; jfuhW Vw;gl;lJ/ gpujpthjp jhd; jfuhW bra;jhh;/ gpujpthjp fhty; epiyaj;jpy; g[fhh; bfhLj;jhh;/ fhty; epiyaj;jpy; v';fs; K:d;W ngiua[k; mjpfhhpfs; tprhhpj;jdh;/ eh';fs; fhty; epiyaj;jpy; v';fs; jug;g[ gw;W vGj;J g{h;tkhf vGjpf; bfhLj;Js;nshk;/ vd;Dila kUkfd;jhd; mjpy; ruj;Jf;fs; vGjpdhh;/ me;j mwpf;ifapy; vd;Dila bgahpYk; ntW ahUila bgahpYk; vGjp itj;Js;sJ gw;wp vdf;F bjhpahJ vd;W

¶40

Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ vd;why; rhpjhd;/“

¶41

11.On fair reading of the both side evidence, it is made clear

¶42

that the plaintiff heirs along with heirs of the deceased, it is made clear that the plaintiff heirs along with her deceased mother K.Girija, they have given to reply complaint given by the defendant in which this

¶43

¶44

plaintiff her mother deceased Girija and her husband were signed. It is admitted fact that as per Section 24 of Evidence Act, any document excepted before the Police Officer is not admissible in evidence. Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act stated as follows:

¶45

“24.Confession caused by inducement, threat of

¶46

promise, when irrelevant in criminal proceeding. - A confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding, if the making of the confession appears to the Court to have been caused by any inducement, threat or promise, having reference to the charge against the accused person, proceeding from a person in authority and sufficient, in the opinion of the Court, to give the accused person grounds, which would appear to him reasonable, for supposing that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against him.”

¶47

12.It is absolutely correct that the any document executed before the Police Officer cannot be called for and taken the said document as evidence for proving the case of the litigation, but this

¶48

¶49

case, the suit has been filed by the plaintiff only based on the bills. But, the defendant findings that the deceased Girija, who is the mother of the plaintiff has permitted the defendant to occupy one portion of the suit schedule of property and the same was written in the documents executed before the said Inspector of Police. If the said document is summoned before the Court below, the real truth will be come out are got in to light before the Court below. The learned Judge very categorically held that the question of admissibility and relevancy of the said documents, which is a matter to be decided after the completion of the trial.

¶50

13.If the said document is summoned and the same is marked that could be decided by the Court below either during the trial or after the trial. In this case, the defendant sought for the relief in I.A.No.728 of 2011 is that only to produce the document letter listed in the petition namely a complaint given by the defendant dated 24.3.2005 in Petition No.35 of 2005, dated 24.03.2005 and the letter given by the plaintiff to the Sub-Inspector of Police, dated 24.03.2005, producing and giving evidence by the Inspector of Police, will not be prejudiced in any way to the plaintiff. Therefore, the order of the learned Judge has well consider order and there is no insist for this Court for the

¶51

¶52

interference of the said order. Hence, the same is liable to be dismissed. Anyhow, this petitioner/plaintiff is giving liberty make her objection for marking of the documents as per the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in Shalimar Chemicals Works Ltd. v. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineries) & Ors. and the same should be consider by the learned Judge.

¶53

14.In the result:

¶54

(a)the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed by

¶55

confirming the order passed in I.A.No.728 of 2011, dated 21.11.2011, by the III Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore.

¶56

(b)the trial Court is directed to complete the

¶57

trial within a period of three months after producing the document sought for in I.A.No.728 of 2011, without giving any adjournments to either parties and both the parties are hereby directed to co-operate for early disposal of the suit.

¶58

¶59

15.Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶60

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶61

19.12.2016

¶62

Index:Yes Internet:Yes

¶63

¶64

¶65

The III Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore.

¶66

¶67

M.V.MURALIDARAN,J.

¶68

¶69

Pre-Delivery order made in CRP(PD)No.455 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012

¶70

19.12.2016

¶71

¶72

http://www.judis.nic.in

G.Rama Rajalakshmi v. M.Sampath Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Rama Rajalakshmi v. M.Sampath Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.Krishnaraj Vs Tirupathy

Mrs E.Bhavani Sankar Vs Mrs Chandrasekaran

D.Govindaraj Vs the Indian Bank

V.Balasundaram, Vs the Principal Secretary

Muthusamy Vs Anbukkarasi

Hindustan Petroleum Vs a. Krishnamurthy