The petitioner challenged the trial court's order allowing the plaintiff to mark an unregistered sale agreement in evidence despite objections regarding signature genuineness. The High Court dismissed the revision, holding that the authenticity of the signature is a question of fact for final determination and the objection is preserved.
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.
C.R.P.No.1014 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.03.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
CRP.No.1014 of 2024 and CMP No.5256 of 2024
M.Ramasamy
... Petitioner
Vs.
1. V.P.Rja
2. A.Boopathi
3. A.Selvam
4. Kamalam ...Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 01.09.2023 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in O.S.No.205 of 2011 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Attur.
For Petitioner :Mr.S.Senthilkumar
ORDER
The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the
Trial Court allowing the application filed by the 1st respondent/plaintiff seeking leave of the Court to mark un-registered sale agreement dated 20.01.2006.
1/5
C.R.P.No.1014 of 2024
the petitioner and other respondents from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The 1st respondent herein claimed possession over the suit property under un-registered sale agreement dated 20.01.2006. When the said document was tendered in evidence and the same was objected by the petitioner, the instant application has been filed by the 1st respondent seeking leave of the Court to mark the document subject to the objection made by the petitioner/1st defendant. The said petition was allowed by the Trial Court by holding that objection raised by the petitioner with regard to the sale agreement dated 20.01.2006 could be decided later. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/1st defendant is before this Court.
sale agreement relied on by the 1st respondent was already sent for expert opinion and the expert had given his opinion stating that the signature found in the sale agreement was not that of the petitioner/1st defendant. Therefore, relying on the expert opinion, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits
2/5
C.R.P.No.1014 of 2024
that the sale agreement in question shall not be admitted in evidence.
19.03.2024
Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No nr
3/5
C.R.P.No.1014 of 2024
To The learned Principal District Munsif, Attur.
4/5
C.R.P.No.1014 of 2024
S.SOUNTHAR , J.
nr
CRP.No.1014 of 2024 and CMP No.5256 of 2024
19.03.2024
5/5
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an unregistered sale agreement, objected to by the defendant, should be marked in evidence subject to such objection?
M.Ramasamy
V.P.Rja
A.Boopathi
A.Selvam
Kamalam
S.Sounthar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
