V R DEVARAJ Vs. G NARAYANASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above revision is filed against the order dated 13.6.2000 made in O.S.No.1584 of 1992 wherein a varthamanam letter was sought to be marked as an exhibit through the first defendant, which was objected to by the plaintiffs and the objection was upheld thereby the first defendant was not allowed to mark the document. THE said order of the trial Judge is tested before this Court in the present revision as to its correctness.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case for the clarity are as follows: Plaintiffs 1 and 2 and the first defendant are sons and the 2nd defendant is the daughter of one Ganga Naidu. THEy divided their property among themselves by a partition deed dated 21.3.1989. In the said partition, the father, Ganga Naidu was allotted 22 cents for his life. On the same day i.e. on 21.3.1989, his sons and the daughter of the said Ganga Naidu executed a varthamanam letter, whereby the said Ganga Naidu was permitted to alienate or encumber the property allotted to his share to meet out his medical expenses, if the same was not met out by his sons. THE said Ganga Naidu sold the entire-extent of 22 cents allotted to him on 4.3.1989 pursuant to the varthamanam letter to the third defendant on 6.9.1990. When that being so, the plaintiffs Narayanasamy and Jagannathan, two sons of Ganga Naidu, on 10.3.1992, filed the suit for partition of the 22 cents, which was allotted to their father in the earlier partition deed dated 21.3.1999 and subsequently sold by him on 6.9.1990 to the third defendant. In the said suit, the varthamanam letter alleged to have been executed by all the sons and daughter of the said Ganga Naidu, was sought to be marked through the first defendant, who is also one of the sons of said Ganga Naidu besides the plaintiffs. That has been objected to by the plaintiffs on the ground that the document is an unregistered document and the said document is created only for the purpose of the suit and that if the said document is accepted, that would alter the very character of the partition deed dated 21.3.1989. On consideration, the learned trial Judge upheld the objection raised on behalf of the plaintiffs and held that if the varthamanam letter is allowed to be marked that would belittle ( ) the partition deed and accordingly, rejected the marking of the said document. THE said order is now disputed in the present revision.

(3.) THE question to be decided in the revision is whether the reasons given by the trial Court for rejecting the marking of the document are sustainable in law.