Dismissed¶34

Saraswathi v. Aruchamy

Madras HC15 Jul 2026CRP/2619/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 45 Indian Evidence Act application; unregistered Panchayat Sale Deed Ex.A1; forensic expert; signature comparison with Ex.B2 and Ex.B3; adverse possession; blow hot and cold; belated application at stage of pronouncement of judgment; inadmissible document; collateral purpose; recall of P.W.1; P.Indiran distinguished; interim stay vacated; suit to be decided in three months; CRP dismissed; O.S.No.285 of 2011 Additional District Munsif Court Pollachi; Madras High Court; Abdul Quddhose J.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the petitioner; the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed, the interim stay granted earlier is vacated, and the Additional District Munsif Court, Pollachi is directed to dispose of O.S.No.285 of 2011 within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order; no costs. ¶34

Saraswathi Vs Aruchamy — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's applications to re-open and recall P.W.1 and to send Ex.A1 (an unregistered Panchayat Sale Deed) to a forensic expert for comparison of signatures under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 were maintainable, the plaintiff claiming title by adverse possession and the applications having been filed belatedly when the case was adjourned for pronouncement of judgment.

¶29

Court's answer

The decision in P.Indiran Vs. N, Balakrishnan and others (CRP (PD) No.3960 of 2019), relied on by the petitioner, is distinguishable: the plaintiff there claimed title under registered Sale Deeds, whereas the petitioner here claims title by way of adverse possession.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner cannot blow hot and cold by claiming adverse possession while at the same time claiming that he was put in possession pursuant to the Panchayat Sale Deed (Ex.A1).

¶29

Key takeaways

Whether an application filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is maintainable depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.ratio¶29
The petitioner's application was admittedly filed belatedly, only at the time when the Trial Court had adjourned the matter for pronouncement of the Judgment.ratio¶29
When a specific defence was raised by the respondent/defendant in the written statement disputing Ex.A1 and disputing the petitioner's possession of the suit schedule property, the question of entertaining an application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act when the case is adjourned for pronouncement of Judgment does not arise; the Trial Court rightly dismissed the application for the correct reasons stated.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRPs dismissed (Madras High Court, Abdul Quddhose, J., 15-07-2026): challenging orders dated 14.03.2025 in IA Nos.7 and 8 of 2024 in O.S.No.285 of 2011 (Additional District Munsif Court, Pollachi) dismissing the plaintiff's applications to re-open and recall P.W.1 and to send Ex.A1, an unregistered Panchayat Sale Deed, to a forensic expert for comparison of its signature with Ex.B2 and Ex.B3 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Held: (i) the decision in P.Indiran Vs. N, Balakrishnan and others (CRP (PD) No.3960 of 2019) relied on by the petitioner was distinguishable, as the plaintiff there claimed title under registered sale deeds whereas the petitioner here claims title by adverse possession; (ii) a party cannot blow hot and cold by pleading adverse possession while also claiming possession under the Panchayat Sale Deed; (iii) the applications were admittedly belatedly filed when the case was adjourned for pronouncement of judgment, and with the defendant having specifically disputed Ex.A1 and the plaintiff's possession in the written statement, the question of entertaining the Section 45 application did not arise; the Trial Court rightly dismissed the applications. Interim stay vacated; Trial Court directed to dispose of O.S.No.285 of 2011 within three months. No costs.

¶1

CRP No. 2619 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 15-07-2026

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶5

CRP Nos. 2619 and 2621 of 2025 and CRP.Nos. 14813 and 14816 of 2025

¶6

Saraswathi

¶7

W/o. Chinnasamy Gounder, 1/223, Arasampalayam Village, Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore District.

¶8

..Petitioner(s)

¶9

¶10

Aruchamy S/o. Subbaiya Gounder, Vadakku Thottam, Arasampalayam Village, Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore District.

¶11

..Respondent(s)

¶12

Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India to set aside the petition and order dated 14.03.2025 made in IA Nos.7 and 8 of 2024 in OS No.285 of 2011 on the file of learned Additional District Munsif Court, Pollachi.

¶13

For Petitioner(s): Mr.N.Ponraj (in both CRP’s) For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Nandhakumar (in both CRP’s)

¶14

COMMON ORDER

¶15

These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed challenging the impugned orders dated 14.03.2025, dismissing the petitioner’s applications seeking to (a) re-open and recall P.W.1 evidence (b) Seeking to send Ex.A1 to the Forensic

¶16

Page1 of 5

¶17

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

¶18

CRP No. 2619 of 2025

¶19

expert and compare the signature found in Ex.A1 with Ex.B2 and Ex.B3 as per

¶20

the provisions of Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872.

¶21

The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant in the suit. O.S.No.285 of 2011 has been filed on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Pollachi. The petitioner filed a suit for declaration to declare that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. He claims ownership of the suit schedule property by way of adverse possession. The petitioner also relies upon an unregistered Panchayat Sale Deed alleged to have been executed in his favour by the respondent. The respondent/defendant in the written statement has disputed the claim of the petitioner/plaintiff. The respondent/defendant also disputes that an unregistered Panchayat Sale Deed has been executed in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff. Under the impugned order, the Trial Court has dismissed the applications filed by the petitioner by giving the following reasons:

¶22

a) The applications were filed belatedly just before the pronouncement of the Judgment by the Trial Court.

¶23

b) Ex.A1 (Panchayat Sale Deed) said to have been executed in favour of

¶24

the petitioner/plaintiff is an unregistered document and is inadmissible in evidence and cannot be relied upon for collateral purpose.

¶25

__________ Page2 of 5

¶26

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

¶27

CRP No. 2619 of 2025

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner would draw the attention of this Court to an order dated 30.12.2020 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CRP (PD) No.3960 of 2019 in the case of P.Indiran Vs. N, Balakrishnan and others and would submit that an application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act is maintainable even if the disputed document is an unregistered document and is inadmissible in evidence.

¶29

In the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to supra, the petitioner/plaintiff in the said suit claimed title under registered Sale Deeds, whereas, in the case on hand, the petitioner/plaintiff is claiming title by way of adverse possession. The petitioner also cannot blow hot and cold by claiming adverse possession but also at the same time, claiming that he was put in possession, pursuant to the Panchayat Sale Deed (Ex.A1). Depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court will have to decide as to whether an application filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872 is maintainable or not. In the case on hand, rightly the Trial Court has rejected the petitioner’s application by giving correct reasons as stated supra. Admittedly, the application was also filed belatedly only at the time when the Trial Court had adjourned the matter for pronouncement of the Judgment. When a specific defense was raised by the respondent/defendant in the written statement disputing Ex.A1 and disputing that the petitioner/plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property, the question of entertaining an

¶30

Page3 of 5

¶31

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

¶32

CRP No. 2619 of 2025

¶33

application filed by the petitioner under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, when the case is adjourned for pronouncement of Judgment does not arise. The Trial Court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. Therefore, necessarily interim stay granted by this Court has to be vacated forthwith and a direction be issued to the Trial Court to dispose of the suit within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶34

For the foregoing reasons, since there is no merit in this Civil Revision Petition, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed by vacating the interim stay granted by this Court earlier and by directing the Additional District Munsif Court, Pollachi to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.285 of 2011, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶35

15-07-2026

¶36

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No arr To

¶37

The Additional District Munsif Court, Pollachi.

¶38

__________ Page4 of 5

¶39

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

¶40

CRP No. 2619 of 2025