The High Court of Madras dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging a Trial Court order that permitted the marking of an unregistered receipt in a property suit. The Court found no illegality in the Trial Court's action, following a specific legal ratio.
The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 13.08.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
CRP (PD).No.2478 of 2018 and CMP.No.15210 of 2018
R.Shanthi
...Petitioner
Vs
[5th respondent is one of the legal representative of Muthyammal, who died on 16.03.2018, the respondents 1 and 4 are other legal representatives of deceased Muthyammal, the application filed before
the trial court is pending enquiry. The order was passed by the trial court on 05.01.2018]
Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and final order dated 05.01.2018 passed in O.S.No.505 of 2012 on the file of District Munsif Court, Omalur insofar as marking the document dated 06.05.1982 by the respondents 1 and 2 and allow the Civil Revision Petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sundaravadhanan
For Respondent for RR1 & 2 : Mr.T.R.Rajaraman for RR3 to 5 : No Appearance
ORDER
This petition has been filed to set aside the fair and final order dated 05.01.2018 passed in O.S.No.505 of 2012 on the file of District Munsif Court, Omalur, insofar as marking the document dated 06.05.1982 by the respondents 1 and 2 and allow the Civil Revision Petition.
the respondents 1 and 2 and perused the materials.
District Munsif Court, Omalur, in O.S.No.505 of 2012 dated 05.01.2018. The petitioner is the third defendant in the suit, which was filed by the respondents 1 and 2 for declaration that the family settlement cancellation deed executed by the first defendant dated 27.02.2012 and the sale deed executed by the first defendant in favour of third defendant dated 20.04.2012, as null and void and for consequential permanent injunction.
establish that the family arrangement dated 20.07.1979 was acted upon and the first plaintiff paid Rs.5,000/- to the second defendant. Though an objection was raised for marking of the documents contending that it is an unregistered receipt, the learned Trial Judge permitted to mark the document subject to objection and proof. In this regard, the Trial Court followed the ratio laid down in 2001 (3) SCC 1 and 2015 1 LW 134.
Assistant Registrar(CS VI)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
pvs
To
The District Munsif , Omalur
CRP (PD).No.2478 of 2018
NK(CO) CT(16/09/2021)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the marking of an unregistered receipt by theTrial Court during a property suit was illegal or infirm.
Whether the District Munsif Court committed any illegality in permitting the receipt to be marked subject to objection and proof.
R. Shanthi
P. Palanisami
Rajeswari
Muthayammal
P. Raji
Rajammal
K. Kalyanasundaram
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
K. Kalyanasundaram
Parties & counsel
