Plaintiffs sought rejection of defendant's documents including a registered adoption deed as inadmissible. The trial court received them reserving admissibility for final disposal. The High Court held relevance could not be denied at this stage and dismissed the civil revision petition, leaving relevancy and proof open.
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.
CRP No.2883 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.08.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
CRP No.2883 of 2024
and CMP No.15318 of 2024
1.T.Theeran
2.T.Vasan
.. Petitioners
-vs-
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 21.11.2023 made in I.A.No.5 of 2023 in O.S.No.100 of 2011 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Kanchipuram.
Page 1 of 6
CRP No.2883 of 2024
For Petitioners : Mr.T.Sathiyamoorthy For Respondents : Ms.J.Nathiya for Mr.M.Ganesh for R-5 * * * * *
ORDER
This civil revision petition arises against the order of the learned Principal District Munsif, Kanchipuram, in I.A.No.5 of 2023 in O.S.No.100 of 2011 dated 21.11.2023.
Page 2 of 6
CRP No.2883 of 2024
which was reflected in the Adoption Deed dated 21.02.2003 which was also registered. The civil revision petitioners pleaded that the said document was inadmissible in evidence by virtue of Section 10 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. Therefore, they wanted to reject the same.
CRP No.2883 of 2024
receive the documents. Under Order XIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, unless and until the document is inadmissible in law or irrelevant, the same cannot be rejected. Whether the first defendant took on the adoption of the second defendant or not would be a relevant fact for the purpose of decision in the case. Therefore, I cannot conclude that it is irrelevant. Nonetheless, the learned Judge having reserved the right of the plaintiffs to raise the issue at the time of final disposal, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order. Accordingly, Exs.B.1 to B.4 shall be received by the trial Court subject to relevancy and proof.
05.08.2024 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No sra
Page 4 of 6
CRP No.2883 of 2024
To
The Principal District Munsif Court, Kanchipuram.
Page 5 of 6
CRP No.2883 of 2024
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
(sra)
CRP No.2883 of 2024
05.08.2024
Page 6 of 6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether Exs.B.1 to B.4, including an adoption deed, could be rejected under Order XIII Rule 3 CPC as inadmissible under Section 10 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bipin Shantilal Panchal vs. State of Gujarat and Anr.Relied on
(2001) 3 SCC 1. · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
T.Theeran
T.Vasan
C.Rathinakumar
R.Balamurugan
C.Murugan
M.Chellamani
V.Lakshminarayanan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
