R. MUNUSAMY Vs. G. KRISHTTAPPILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order, dated 16.6.2011 made in I.A.No.124 of 2011 in O.S.No.146 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Uthiramerur, in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 C.P.C. to mark an unregistered sale deed, dated 27.7.1994 on his side.

(2.) The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants in the said suit. The petitioner filed the said suit seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The abovesaid I.A. was filed by the petitioner by contending that he had purchased the suit property under an unregistered sale deed, dated 27.7.1994 from the first defendant by paying the entire sale amount, who in turn handed over the possession of the suit property to the petitioner and for the purpose of proving his possession, the said document is to be marked only for such collateral purpose. The said application was resisted by the respondents mainly by contending that such unregistered sale deed cannot be admitted in evidence even for collateral purpose. The Court below rejected the said application only on the reason that the said document was not registered.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the said document was sought to be marked only for collateral purpose to prove the possession of the plaintiff, and therefore, there is no legal bar in marking the said document. She further contended that one of the defendants subsequently filed a suit in O.S.No.10 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Uthiramerur in respect of the very same property against the petitioner herein, seeking for declaration and permanent injunction and the said suit came to be dismissed by judgment and decree dated 23.4.2014 by specifically giving a finding that the petitioner herein is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. In support of her submissions, learned counsel relied on the following decisions: