PERIYA PAPPAL Vs. MUTHALAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Plaintiff in the Original Suit in O.S. No. 76 of 2005 pending on the file of learned Subordinate Judge, Kallakurichi is the Petitioner in the present Revision. The 6th Defendant in the said Suit is the Respondent herein. The said Suit has been filed for declaration of title and a consequential injunction. During the course of the trial, one Chinnadurai was examined as D.W. 4. He is none other than the son of the 6th Defendant-Muthalammal, the Respondent herein and he was also recognised as the Power Agent of the 6th Defendant. Contending that he could not speak about the facts, which were not within his personal knowledge and he ventured to give evidence regarding the facts known by his principal, the Petitioner/Plaintiff chose to file I.A. No. 363/2011 under Section 151, C.P.C. r/w. Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 for the rejection of the evidence of D.W. 4. The learned Trial Judge, after hearing both sides, chose to dismiss the said Petition by Order dated 19.9.2011 and the same is impugned in the present Revision.

(2.) The arguments advanced by Mr. P. Valliappan, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and by Mr. V. Manohar, learned Counsel for the Respondent are heard. Copy of the impugned Order and copies of the other documents produced in the form of typed set of papers are also perused.

(3.) The short point that arises for consideration in this Revision is: