MANIKANNAN Vs. SAMBANDAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Plaintiff in a suit for declaration and for permanent injunction is the petitioner before this Court. He is aggrieved against the order passed by the Court below in condoning the delay of filing certain documents by the respondent herein. The claim of the petitioner as the plaintiff in O.S. No. 549 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif Court is that the suit properties are the joint family properties and in pursuant to a partition deed dated 11.6.1979, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the properties for more than 35 years. The defendants without having any manner of right or title over the suit properties attempted to interfere with the same. Consequently, the plaintiff/petitioner filed the above suit with the relief as stated supra.

(2.) The first defendant/the respondent herein filed a written statement and contended that the plaintiff borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- from the first defendant on 7.11.2003 and created a usufructuary mortgage in respect of suit item No. 2 in favour of the first defendant. Consequent upon execution of such document, the first defendant was also put in possession. It is further stated that the plaintiff also executed a promissory note under an agreement in favour of the first defendant on the very same day. As the plaintiff expressed his inability to bear the registration expenses, those documents were not registered. The first defendant/respondent filed the present I.A. under Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C., nearly after four years seeking for condonation of delay in filing those three documents viz., promissory note, receipt and mortgage deed dated 7.11.2003.

(3.) The application was resisted by the petitioner herein by stating that the documents sought to be filed by the petitioner are xerox copies and also unregistered one. Therefore, the same cannot be received as evidence. It is also contended by the petitioner that the contention of the first defendant with regard to impounding of the original documents in O.S. No. 129 of 2007 is false and in fact no documents were impounded for collection of stamp duties and no suit is also pending before the Sub-Court, Cuddalore in O.S. No. 129 of 2007.