Mr.S.Ajit Kumar Vs Mrs.Kusum Ashok

¶1

A No. 2571 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 08-09-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

¶6

A No. 2571 of 2025 IN

¶7

CS NO. 166 OF 2004

¶8

Mr.S.Ajit Kumar S/o.M.Shanthilal Jain, Old NO.39, New No.9, Jeremiah Road, Vepery, Chennai 60007

¶9

Applicant / 2nd defendant

¶10

Vs

¶11

1.Mrs.Kusum Ashok W/o.Mr.Ashok Old No.39 New No.9 Jeremiah Road Vepery Ch 7.

¶12

1st respondent / plaintiff

¶13

2.Mrs.N.MAdan Bai W/o.Late Nemichand Jain No.156 Trunk Road Poonamallee Trivellore District 56

¶14

3.Mr.N.Jaya Kumar S/o.Nemichand Jain No.156 Trunk Road Poonamallee Trivellore District 56

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

A No. 2571 of 2025

¶17

4.Mrs.P.Padmavathi W/o.Prakash Chand Solanki No.41 Kondapuram Street Trivellore 602 001s

¶18

5.Mrs.V.Chandra W/o.M.Veerandar Kumar No.605-a Wing Adinath Apartments Tardeo Grantes West Mumbai 400 001

¶19

6.Mrs.P.Nirmala W/o.Prakash Chand Lalwani No.13 Clements Road Doveton (near Sms Hospital) Purasawalkam Chennai 600 007

¶20

7.Mrs.P.Lalitha W/o.Padam Sen Surana Paras Agency No.90 Nageshwaran South Street Kumbakonam 612 001

¶21

8.Mrs.G.Saraswathi W/o.Gouthamchandji Surana No.439 M.T.H. Road Ambattur Chennai 53

¶22

9.Mrs.V.Kalavathi

¶23

W/o.Vijayakumarji Mehta Mahaveer Jewellers

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

A No. 2571 of 2025

¶26

Lawrence Road Cuddalore

¶27

10.Mrs.P.Vaijayathimala W/o.R.Praveen Kumar Kochar No.86 Mint Street First Floor Sowcarpet Chennai 600 079

¶28

11.Mrs.R.Sharmila W/o.Rateesh Kumarji Bhatia Chellani Complex Veerappan Street Sowcarpet Chennai 79

¶29

Respondents / Defendants

¶30

PRAYER : To receive the additional documents as secondary evidence as listed in the schedule to the Judges Summons on the side of the defendants in C.S.No.166 of 2004.

¶31

For Applicant(s): M/s.A.Palaniappan For Respondent(s): M/s. Aashish Jain Lunia for D2 Mr.M.Devendran for D1, D3 to D11

¶32

ORDER

¶33

The applicant / second defendant has filed this application to receive the additional documents as secondary evidence as listed in the schedule to the Judges Summons on the side of the defendants in C.S.No.166 of 2004.

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

A No. 2571 of 2025

¶36

The applicant is the second defendant in the main suit. The first respondent / plaintiff has filed a suit for partition by claiming ½ share in the suit property. The suit is now at the stage of recording defendants' side evidence. The applicant who claims himself as the adopted son of the original owner of the property Shanthilal Jain has filed this application to receive the following documents by claiming that they are relevant to the case:

¶37

(i) The Commissioner of IT, acknowledgment for voluntary disclosure scheme along with relevant annexures dated 27.12.1997.

¶38

(ii) Application form - Bharat Krishak Samaj dated 26.06.1983.

¶39

The first document is the acknowledgment for receiving the form of declaration submitted by late Shanthilal Jain under voluntary disclosure scheme. The other document is an application filed by late Shanthilal Jain under Bharat Krishak Samaj for becoming a life member. In the said application, the applicant's name has been written as a nominee for Shanthilal Jain.

¶40

The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that those documents are relevant in order to prove that the applicant is the adopted son of Shanthilal Jain and that Shanthilal Jain has got movable properties as shown in the form attached therein and that they should also be subjected to partition. Hence, the secondary evidence can be received and permitted to be used as an evidence on the side of the second defendant.

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶42

A No. 2571 of 2025

¶43

Even according to the applicant, the first document was filed before the Income Tax Department. Hence, it can be considered as a public document. Such public documents can be called for from the authority who would have its custody. Unless efforts to produce the original documents in custody are found to be unsuccessful or the original documents are not available, then only depending upon the relevancy of the documents, the copies of those documents can be received as secondary evidence. As the documents are said to be public documents, the copies of those documents should be attested by the concerned authority in order to confirm that they are the copies of the original documents only.

¶44

As the applicant has filed this application without exhausting the above remedy and without getting due certification on the copies, this application is disposed with liberty to the applicant to take the above steps for the purpose pleaded by him.

¶45

08-09-2025

¶46

gsk

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶48

A No. 2571 of 2025

¶49

To

¶50

1.Mrs.Kusum Ashok