KASTHURI Vs. R.HEMALATHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff, who is the revision petitioner before this Court, is challenging the order passed by the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Trichy in I.A.No.159 of 2017 in O.S.No.199 of 2014.

(2.) I.A.No.159 of 2017 was filed by the defendant to take up the issue as to whether an unregistered agreement of sale could be marked as evidence as a preliminary issue. After considering the application, the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Trichy has come to the conclusion that the agreement of sale dtd. 10/9/2013 was sought to be marked to establish the primary purpose and therefore, it cannot be received in evidence.

(3.) Though the issue for consideration before this Court is purely a legal issue, there is a necessity to briefly touch upon the facts that have ultimately culminated in the passing of the impugned order. FACTS OF THE CASE:-