JAYARAMAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner is the fourth defendant in o. S. No. 546 of 1989 in the Court of the District Munsif of Thiruthuraipoondi. THE fifth respondent/plaintiff instituted that suit for a declaration that he is the Manager of one Muslim Minority Educational Institution known as Valluvar aided Elementary School, Vittukatti, Thiruthuraipoondi Taluk and for a permanent injunction restraining the Secretary Education Department, District educational Officer, Pattukottai and Deputy Inspector of Schools, thiruthuraipoondi, present revision petitioner Jayaraman and one Murugesan who are defendants 1 to 4 respectively from interfering with his right of management in the administration of the said institution. His case is that his father was the founder and Manager of the said elementary school. He established and administered the same till his death on 17. 4. 1987 After his demise in a family arrangement plaintiff took over the management of the said institution. As headmaster of the school the revision petitioner/fourth defendant can exercise only control over the working staff of it. He has no other powers. And the school is functioning in a thatched-cum Mangalore tiled building constructed by the founder of the school in a Natham Jari. All the furniture and other movables were procured byway of donations and purchases by the founder. THE suit property is described as the Elementary School in vittukatti hamlet functioning in partly titled and partly thatched brick built in R. S. No. 227/2 Natham Jari with 9 teachers inclusive of Headmaster and with all furniture like tables, chairs, etc. right to manage the above school with all its properties. It appears that the revision petitioner based his claim to the school on a document dated 25. 2. 1979 purported to have been executed by abdul Kader Rowther, the Founder/manager of the School.

(2.) WHEN the revision petitioner was examined. The said instrument dated 25. 2. 1979 was sought to be marked through him by the defendants. And this was objected to by the plaintiff. In his order dated 23. 6. 1993 learned District Munsif held that the document was inadmissible for want of registration and accordingly refused to mark the same. And this order is assailed in this civil revision petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the revision petitioner next submitted that strictest construction should be placed upon the prohibitory and penal sections of the Registration Act which impose serious disqualifications upon the non-observance of the rule of registration and unless a document is clearly brought within the purview of the Act, non-registration is no her to its being acted upon or received in evidence, and in case of doubt the benefit of the doubt should be given to the person who wants the Court to act upon or receive it in evidence. And in support of her contention she based reliance on the Full Bench decision in Hassan and v. Joo-omal, A. I. R. 1936 Sind. 79. However, we find from the terms of the document that the property mentioned therein is conveyed hereditarily with all powers of alienation to the revision petitioner. While so, even a strictest construction of the section as contemplated by the Full Bench decision referred to have cannot help her in any manner.