Dismissed

Rangasamy v. Jamunarani

Madras HC17 Apr 2021CRP/1452/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenged an order dismissing the petitioner's application to compel respondents to produce documents related to an earlier suit. The High Court held that certified copies from the relevant court would suffice and dismissed the revision.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; connected miscellaneous petition closed; no order as to costs.

Rangasamy Vs Jamunarani — Property and Title | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

CRP.PD.No.1452 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 17.04.2021

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

CRP.PD.No.1452 of 2018 and CMP.No.7747 of 2018

¶7

Rangasamy ..Petitioner
Vs.
1.Jamunarani
2.Nagarajan ..Respondents
PRAYER:

¶8

The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the

¶9

Constitution of India against the fair and final order dated 29.01.2018 passed in IA.No.1526 of 2017 in OS.No.4497 of 2004 on the file of II

¶10

Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore.

¶11

For Respondents For R1 : Mr.R.Govindaraj ORDER

¶12

This civil revision petition is filed against the fair and final order dated 29.01.2018 passed in IA.No.1526 of 2017 in

¶13

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶14

1/6

¶15

CRP.PD.No.1452 of 2018

¶16

OS.No.4497 of 2004 on the file of II Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore, thereby dismissing the petition filed to produce the documents.

¶17

The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants. The petitioner filed suit for declaration declaring declaration declaring that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the property as per the sale deed dated 11.12.1995 vide document No.5440 of 1995 and also for injunction. Further prayed for declaration declaring that the decree obtained in OS.No.1318 of 1994 on the file of the Sub Court, Coimbatore and the exparte order in the execution proceedings in EP.No.100 of 2002 on the file of the II Additional Sub Court, Coimbatore are null and void. The first defendant filed written statement stating that the first respondent entered into agreement for sale with the second respondent to purchase the property in question in the year 1992 and paid a sum of Rs.21,000/- as an advance. Thereafter, the second defendant failed to execute the sale deed within the stipulated time as such the first defendant filed suit for specific performance in OS.No.1318 of 1994 and the same was decreed on 18.04.1995. In pursuant to the decree, sale deed was executed in favour of the first respondent herein. Thereafter, the first respondent also filed execution petition in

¶18

2/6

¶19

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶20

CRP.PD.No.1452 of 2018

¶21

EP.No.372 of 2004 for delivery of possession. Thereafter, the second respondent herein set up the petitioner and filed vexatious suits to nullify the sale deed executed in favour of the first defendant. Further stated that as against the execution order, the petitioner also filed CMA.No.38 of 2009 on the file of the District Judge, Coimbatore. Even then, the petitioner suppressed the entire facts and filed the present suit and as such the suit itself is not maintainable and liable to be

¶22

dismissed.

¶23

At that juncture, the petitioner filed the present

¶24

petition to direct the defendants to produce the following documents. (i) 07.01.1993 - sale agreement between the defendants (ii) 18.04.1995 – Copy of sale deed executed in favour of

¶25

Mrs.Jamunarani by the Sub Court, Coimbatore

¶26

(iii) 30.08.2006 – Possession receipt issued to Mrs.Jamunarani

¶27

(iv) 1993 – Copy of letter of submissions for permission to

¶28

enter

¶29

into sale agreement submitted by Jamunarani to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore

¶30

(v) 08.06.2016 – Copy of complaint submitted to the Bar

¶31

Counsel of Tamil Nadu by Jamunarani

¶32

3/6

¶33

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶34

CRP.PD.No.1452 of 2018

¶35

4. Since the documents sought for by the petitioner

¶36

are pertaining to earlier suit filed by the first defendant, if at all the petitioner relies upon those documents, he can very well apply for certified copies. Therefore, the court below rightly dismissed the petition and this Court finds no irregularity or infirmity in the order passed by the court below.

¶37

Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No order as
to costs.
17.04.2021
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
lok

¶38

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶39

4/6

¶40

CRP.PD.No.1452 of 2018

¶41

To
The II Additional District Munsif Court,
Coimbatore.

¶42

5/6

¶43

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶44

CRP.PD.No.1452 of 2018

¶45

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.

¶46

lok

¶47

CRP.PD.No.1452 of 2018

¶48

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶49

6/6

¶50

CRP.PD.No.1452 of 2018

¶51

17.04.2021

¶52

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶53

7/6

Rangasamy v. Jamunarani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rangasamy v. Jamunarani

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

S.P.Raja Vs Neelavathy

P.N.Balasubramanian Vs K.Shanmugam

T.a.Viswanathan(died) Vs T.P.Subramani(died)

Panner Vs R.Vilwanathan

Panner Vs R.Vilwanathan

Chellamuthu Gounder Vs Kuppusamy Gounder