Allowed

Vijayalakshmi, v. Guhadoss

Madras HC15 Jul 2025CRP(MD)/1513/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Plaintiff challenged the trial court's refusal to permit marking of a certified copy of a chitta obtained from the Sub-Court, Trichirappalli. The High Court held such certified copy is admissible secondary evidence and set aside the order, permitting marking subject to production of the original at trial for comparison.

What did the court decide?

Order in I.A.No.2/2021 in O.S.No.60/2016 set aside; Sub-Court, Thuraiyur directed to receive the certified copy of the chitta; no costs.

Vijayalakshmi, Vs Guhadoss — Property and Title | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

C.R.P.(MD)No.1513 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 15.07.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

C.R.P..(MD)No.1513 of 2022

¶7

and

¶8

C.M.P.(MD)No.6357 of 2022

¶9

Vijayalakshmi ...Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.Guhadoss 2.C.Nakkeeran

¶12

3.M.Muthulingam

¶13

4.S.Durai

¶14

5.Gowrisankar

¶15

6.E.Mullai

¶16

7.M.Subramanian

¶17

8.Mathurapuri Panchayat Rep. by its President, Mathurapuri. 9.State of Tamilnadu, Represented by the District Collector, Tiruchirapalli.

¶18

10.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Thuraiyur.

¶19

11.Chandramohan K.Mahadevan (Died) 12.Tharneetharan 13.Annamalai 14.Ravikumar

¶20

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

¶21

1/7

¶22

C.R.P.(MD)No.1513 of 2022

¶23

15.Jeyakumar

¶24

16.Saravanan

¶25

17.Pitchaiammal

¶26

18.Mahendran 19.Kalyani 20.Selvam 21.Kalaiselvi 22.Yogalekshmi 23.Manikandan 24.Priya

¶27

...Respondents

¶28

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 29.10.2021 passed by the Sub-Court, Thuraiyur in I.A.No.2 of 2021 in O.S.No.60 of 2016 and allow this Civil Revision Petition.

¶29

For Petitioner	: Mr.S.C.Herold Singh
For RR 2 to 4
12,19 & 20	: Mr.C.Dhanaseelan
For R5	: Mr.N.Tamilmani
For R6	: Mr.A.Mohan
For RR9 & 10	: Mr.B.Saravanan
	Additional Govenment Pleader
For R11	: Mr.A.Arivuchandran

¶30

ORDER

¶31

This petition has been filed seeking to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 29.10.2021 passed by the Sub-Court, Thuraiyur in I.A.No.2 of 2021 in O.S.No.60 of 2016 and allow this Civil Revision Petition.

¶32

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a plaintiff in O.S.No.

¶33

60 of 2016 on the file of the Sub-Court, Thuraiyur. The petitioner filed a suit

¶34

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

¶35

2/7

¶36

C.R.P.(MD)No.1513 of 2022

¶37

for declaration, recovery of possession and for permanent injunction. Pending suit, he filed I.A.No.2/2021 to mark the certified copy of the document before the trial Court and the same was dismissed. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

¶38

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.60 of 2016 on the file of the Sub-Court, Thuraiyur. Pending suit, he has filed I.A.No.2 of 2021 for marking the certified copy of the chitta. The very same chitta was marked before the Sub Court, Trichy in O.S.No.895 of 2010 and thereafter, the petitioner made an application before the Sub-Court, Trichirapalli for issuing certified copy of the said Chitta and the Sub-Court, Trichirappalli issued a certified copy of the Chitta to enable the petitioner to file a said document before the trial Court. Thereby, he filed I.A.No.2 of 2021 before the Sub-Court, Thuraiyur under Section 151 C.P.C., for marking the document. The learned Sub-Judge, Thuraiyur has dismissed the said application on the ground that the said document has not either coming under secondary evidence or primary evidence and instead of obtaining certified copy from the revenue department, getting the copy before the trial Court is not sustainable. Admittedly, the petitioner obtained certified copy from the SubCourt, Trichirappalli and the certified copy was marked before the trial Court,

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/7

¶40

C.R.P.(MD)No.1513 of 2022

¶41

however, the trial Court arrived at a conclusion that the said document is not a secondary evidence. Such conclusion arrived at by the trial Court is not sustainable one. Even, the revenue authorities issued a chitta again, that also secondary evidence. However, in the present case, the petitioner has not marked the xerox copy of the document. He marked the certified copy of the document issued by the Sub-Court, Trichy, which is admissible one and the same was denied by the trial Court is not correct and prays for allowing the Civil Revision Petition.

¶42

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that already Chitta was marked before the Sub Court, Trichirappalli in O.S.No.895 of 2010, that itself is a secondary evidence, thereby, the trial Court dismissed the I.A., which need not be interfered with.

¶43

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶44

The facts of the present case are not in dispute. The petitioner is a plaintiff in O.S.No.60 of 2021, in which he filed I.A.No.2 of 2021 for marking the chitta as a document. Admittedly, chitta was obtained by the petitioner from

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/7

¶46

C.R.P.(MD)No.1513 of 2022

¶47

the Sub Court, Trichirappalli as certified copy. The conclusion of the trial Court is that the certified copy obtained by the petitioner is not a secondary evidence and it is not sustainable one. The original certified copy is available in the Court, in which, the trial Court has taken the certified copy and issued to the petitioner and such a evidence is secondary evidence which is permissible one. If at all the petitioner wants to compare the said chitta with the original at the time of trial, it is the duty cost upon the petitioner to produce the original at the time of evidence to enable the respondent to compare the chitta with original. The trial Court has refused to mark th document and the is not sustainable one.

¶48

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order passed in I.A.No.2 of 2021 in O.S.No.60 of 2016 passed by the Sub Court, Thuraiyur is set aside. The Sub Court, Thuraiyur is directed to receive the certified copy of the document issued by the Sub-Court, Trichirappalli, in which the respondent wants to compare the Chitta with original. It is the duty cost upon the petitioner/plaintiff to produce the original at the time of trial. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶49

15.07.2025

¶50

Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No

¶51

¶52

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

¶53

5/7

¶54

C.R.P.(MD)No.1513 of 2022

¶55

¶56

1.The Sub-Court, Thuraiyur

¶57

2.The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶58

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/7

¶59

C.R.P.(MD)No.1513 of 2022

¶60

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

¶61

¶62

C.R.P.(MD)No.1513 of 2022

¶63

15.07.2025

¶64

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

¶65

7/7

Vijayalakshmi, v. Guhadoss

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijayalakshmi, v. Guhadoss

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

The Managing Director Vs Trelli South Flat Owners Welfare Association

Muthuram Kumar Vs Chitrai Banu

Pitchai Vs Thaiamuthu

Periyasamy, Vs Santha

The National Insurance Company Limited, Vs Minor. Karuna Devi

S.Dilip Raja Vs Kalima Banu