AMERTHAM Vs. THANNACE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.219 of 2010 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Sankarankovil, for declaration of his title and consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants/respondents herein from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The suit property is an extent of 0.55.5 Hectares equivalent to 1 acre 37 cents in Survey No.1051/1 in Kalingapatti Revenue Village within Tenkasi Registration District.

(2.) The case of the revision petitioner in the plaint is that an extent of 1 acre 58 cents on the northern side of Survey No.1050/1 belong to one Krishna Thevar and others who sold the same to the first defendant by a registered sale deed dated 21.01.1963. It is contended that the remaining extent of 78 cents on the southern side of Survey No.1050/1 belonged to the plaintiff by virtue of a registered settlement deed stated to have been executed by one Marimuthu. It is the further case of the revision petitioner that out of the extent of 1 acre 58 cents purchased by the first defendant, the plaintiff purchased 1 acre by a sale deed executed by the first defendant in his favour. Stating that the plaintiff orally gifted an extent of 39 cents in favour of his brother out of 78 cents he got under the gift deed dated 25.09.1971, it is the case of plaintiff that he is entitled to 1 acre 39 cents in Survey No.1050/1. The further case of petitioner is that a common well was dug by him in an extent of 2 cents out of 1 acre 39 cents and another two cents from the holding of the first defendant and that the plaintiff thereafter is entitled to the suit property measuring 1 acre 39 cents in Survey No.1050/1. The second defendant is the son of first defendant.

(3.) Defendants filed a written statement specifically denying all the averments made in the plaint para-wise. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner filed a petition in I.A.No.112 of 2011 for marking a document namely an unregistered sale deed dated 25.11.1973. The said petition was contested by the respondents on the ground that the alleged sale deed dated 25.11.1973, which is neither stamped nor registered, is inadmissible in evidence and that the said document cannot be admitted for any collateral purpose as the petitioner claim title and possession only on the basis of the said document. In the additional written statement, the respondents raised an issue regarding the genuineness of the transaction namely the unregistered sale deed dated 25.11.1973.