P PALANI Vs. P SAMINATHA PADAYACHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE civil revision petition is filed against the order of the learned District Munsif, Cuddalore dated 13.2.2001 made in O.S.No.454 of 1998.

(2.) THE petitioner/plaintiff filed a civil suit in O.S.No.454 of 1998 before the District Munsif Court, Cuddalore against the respondents herein/defendants for declaring his right to easement to let out water for a width of 2 feet beyond the line CF in the plaint plan and for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the wall constructed by them 2 1/2" away of the western side of CP wall to a height of 15 feet.

(3.) THE various averments made in the plaint, written statement a well as the relief prayed for in the suit, it is clear that the plaintiff is claiming easementary right and for the said purpose he has filed the present suit. In such a circumstance, though the partition agreement dated 21.6.1982 is an unregistered one, can be considered and marked only for collateral purpose as claimed by the plaintiff. In this regard, it is useful to refer the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of A.C.Lakshmipathy and another v. A.M.Chakrapani Reddiar and others A.C.Lakshmipathy and another v. A.M.Chakrapani Reddiar and others A.C.Lakshmipathy and another v. A.M.Chakrapani Reddiar and others (2001)1 MLJ. 1. After referring the relevant provisions from the Indian Registration Act and Indian Stamp Act as well as the earlier decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court, the Division Bench has summed up the legal position. Among IX clauses, clause VIII is relevant. "VIII. Whether the purpose is a collateral purpose, it is a question of fact depending upon facts and circumstances of each case. A person cannot claim a right or title, to a property under the said document, which is being looked into only for collateral purposes."