JOSEPH ATHMA PILLAI Vs. R. GOVINDARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A re'sume' of facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition would run thus:

(2.) THE learned counsel for the first respondent / plaintiff would pyramid his arguments which could succinctly and precisely be set out thus:

(3.) THE trite proposition of law is that normally a party to the proceeding shall examine himself first and thereafter in order to buttress and fortify his case, he can examine witnesses. However, this is a singularly singular case wherein earlier as has been observed by me supra, Savithiri Ammal was arrayed as D1 and she also filed the written statement and thereafter, for reasons best known to the plaintiff, he sought for deleting from the party array the D1 as well as the D2. It is the stand of the plaintiff that he happened to be the cultivating tenant in the suit property, under Savithiri Ammal, and thereafter from Savithiri Ammal, Joseph Athma Pillai (D3) purchased the property. Hence it is quite obvious that the said Joseph Athma Pillai could not have any personal knowledge about the said factum of alleged tenancy emerged between the plaintiff and Savithiri Ammal. In such a case, examining the erstwhile D1-Savithiri Ammal as D.W.1 and thereafter examining D3, would not in any way antithetical to the well established principles governing the conduct of trial. If in an hypothetical case, the defendant is having personal knowledge of a fact then he should be the witness at the first instance. But here, as per the natural course of events, D3-Joseph Athma Pillai, purchased the property from D1 and in order to speak about the alleged tenancy emerged between the plaintiff and Savithiri Ammal in respect of the suit property, there is no harm in examining her at the first instance and thereafter examining D3. The Lower Court without ascertaining the case in the proper perspective,simply dismissed it warranting interference in revision.