MEENAKSHIAMMAL Vs. GOPALAKANNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiffs 2 to 8 in No. 796 of 1992 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thiruvallur are the revision petitioners. Originally, one A.K. Subramania Mudaliar filed the said suit for a declaration of his right and title over the suit property and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and supporters from in any way interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit property. Pending suit, the plaintiff died. His wife, sons and daughters were brought on record as his legal representatives and shown as plaintiffs 2 to 9 so as to pursue the suit. When the suit was taken up for trial, the impleaded plaintiffs filed a petition for marking of Documents 1 to 16 enclosed along with the said petition on 20-10-2000. The said request was objected to by the first defendant on the ground that those Documents, viz. 1 to 16 were secured subsequent to the filing of the suit and cannot have any bearing on the suit claim.

(2.) It is seen that P.W. 1 was examined on the side of the plaintiffs on 13-10-2000 and on that day, Exs. A. 1 to A.7 were marked and the matter was adjourned to 20-10-2000 for continuation. On the next hearing day, when the documents, viz. patta and kist receipts were sought to be marked, the same was objected to by the defendants. The learned District Munsif, accepting the objection raised by the defendants, after holding that the documents sought to be marked were obtained later and relate to the period subsequent to the filing of the suit, refused to grant permission to mark the same on the side of the plaintiffs, which necessitated the plaintiffs to approach this Court by way of the present revision.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that A.K.Subramania Mudaliar, the person who filed the said suit at the first instance (since deceased), himself has produced various documents including the partition deed, kist receipts, chitta extract and adangal extract, along with the plaint. Learned counsel claims that consequent to the death of the plaintiff, plaintiffs 2 to 9 were brought on record as his legal representatives and the patta which stood in the name of A.K.Subramania Mudaliar was got changed in their favour and they are paying the kist for the subsequent years. According to the learned counsel, those documents are relevant and are required in order to establish the suit claim.