The High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 challenging the trial court's order admitting documentary exhibits (family photograph and transfer certificate) to prove succession rights in a dispute over legal heirs of C. Mani.
The Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed with no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 16.07.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
CRP (PD) No.2668 of 2014
and
MP No.1 of 2014
1. M. Bakyam
2. M. Lakshmanan
3. M. Parameswari
4. M. Bhuvaneswari ... Petitioners
versus
1. M.Kumudha
2. M.Ayyappan
3. M.Rajeswari
4. The Chief General Manager,
Chennai Telephones
No.78, Purasaiwakkam High Road,
Chennai – 600 010.
5. The Welfare Officer,
Chennai Telephones,
No.78, Armenian Street,
Chennai – 600 001. ... Respondents
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 24.06.2014 in I.A. No.4804 of 2014 in O.S. No.983 of 2002 passed by the learned XVII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in allowing the petition filed by the petitioner / plaintiff in I.A. No.4804 of 2014.
2
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Rajendran For Respondents : Mr.R. Rajasekaran for RR1 to 3 No appearance for RR4 and 5
ORDER
The instant Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 24.06.2014 passed by the learned XVII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in I.A. No.4804 of 2014 in O.S. No.983 of 2014.
Brief facts leading to the filing of the instant Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
was filed by the respondents 1 to 3 against the Chief General Manager, Chennai Telephones and the Welfare Officer, Chennai Telephones, Chennai, seeking for a declaration that the respondents No.1 to 3 are
the sole legal representatives of the deceased C.Mani as they are his wife, son and daughter respectively. Thereafter, the petitioners, who also claimed to be the Legal Representatives of Late C.Mani were impleaded in the suit by the order of the Trial Court and they were
3
added as defendants 3 to 6 in the suit O.S. No.983 of 2002. While the suit was in the stage of trial, the respondents 1 to 3, who are the plaintiffs in the suit filed I.A. No.4804 of 2014 in O.S. No.983 of 2002 under Order VII Rule 14 (3) CPC seeking permission of the Trial Court to receive the documents viz., a)Family Photograph and b) Transfer Certificate to enable them to mark them as exhibits. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of I.A. No.4804 of 2014 that the defendants 1 and 2 have illegally released the family pension to the 3rd defendant which necessitated them to file the suit for declaration as the petitioners are the only legal heirs of the deceased C. Mani. It is also stated that during the cross examination of PW1 (1st plaintiff), there was a suggestion put by the respondents Nos.3 to 6 that the father's name of the 2 and 3rd petitioners differs in the certificate which was produced by the defendants during the course of trial. Therefore, they have pleaded in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.4804 of 2014 that the documents namely a) Family photograph and (b) Transfer certificate which disclose the name of the second and third plaintiffs' father as Mani are required to be marked as Exhibits for the purpose of proving their case.
4
sought to be marked by the petitioners are only to fill up the lacuna in the suit. They have further stated that during the cross examination, it was admitted by the 1st respondent / 1st plaintiff that in the Birth Certificate of Ayyappan (2nd respondent / 2nd plaintiff), his father's name was mentioned as Anand and the same was changed later, prior to the filing of the suit. It has also been stated in the counter affidavit that the 1st respondent / 1st plaintiff admits in her cross examination that she applied for change of father's name in the Birth Certificate of
Ayyappan, only prior to the filing of the suit.
4.By the order dated 24.06.2014, the learned XVII Assistant
Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai allowed I.A. No.4804 of 2014 filed by the respondents 3 to 6 observing that excepting the objections of the respondents 3 to 6 that the photographs without negative cannot be marked and the Transfer Certificate is not a genuine one, they have not raised any serious objection for allowing the I.A. No.4804 of 2014. Accordingly, the Trial Court has allowed I.A. No.4804 of 2014 in the interest of justice to give an opportunity to the respondents Nos.3 to 6 to put forward their case, which will not prejudice the rights of the petitioners /defendants, since the petitioners / defendants can always raise objections on the veracity and admissibility of the documents
5
during the cross examination of the respondents witness. Aggrieved by allowing of I.A. No.4804 of 2014 in O.S. No.983 of 2002, the instant Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by the petitioners, who are the defendants 3 to 6 in the suit.
Discussion :
6
wedded wife of Late C. Mani, whereas the 1st petitioner, who is the 3rd defendant in the suit claims that she is the legally wedded wife of Late C. Mani. This being the case, the documents sought to be marked as Exhibits by the respondents 3 to 6 viz., a) Family Photograph, which admittedly is a group photo of Late C.Mani as well the 1st plaintiff and another child and b) Transfer Certificate, which discloses the name of Late C. Mani may be relevant documents as both of them are connected with Mani only. The 1st respondent / 1st plaintiff and 1st petitioner / 3rd defendant both claim that Late C. Mani is their husband. This being the case, this Court is of the considered view that the documents which is sought to be received as Exhibits are relevant for adjudicating the dispute between the parties as the relief sought for in the suit is for a declaration that the respondents 1 to 3 / plaintiffs are the legal heirs of deceased C. Mani, which is disputed by the petitioners / defendants 3 to 6, who claim to be the legal representatives of Late C. Mani.
to the conclusion that documents sought to be marked are relevant documents. The Trial Court has allowed the application only in the interest of justice and to give opportunity to the respondents/ plaintiffs
7
1 to 3 to put forth their case, which will not prejudice the right of the petitioners / defendants 3 to 6, as they can raise their objections, if any available to them, while cross examining the witnesses of the respondents 3 to 6, during trial. Hence, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Trial Court. Accordingly the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
16.07.2019
Index: Yes/ No Internet: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order vsi2
8
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
vsi2
To : The XVII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
CRP (PD) No.2668 of 2014
16.07.2019
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's order allowing an interim application to admit documentary evidence marked by a party in a succession suit.
Whether the admission of the disputed exhibits would prejudice the rights of the defendants claiming succession rights.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
M. Bakyam
M. Lakshmanan
M. Parameswari
M. Bhuvaneswari
M.Kumudha
M.Ayyappan
Abdul Quddose
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
