ESWARI Vs. PALANIAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 30.07.2003 of the Principal District Munsif, Palani in I.A.No.728 of 2003 in O.S.No.870 of 1996, dismissing the Petition refusing to admit the Unregistered document. The Plaintiff is the Revision Petitioner.

(2.) THE dispute between the parties revolves around the document termed as said to be the Lease Agreement of Agricultural lands. THE First Defendant is the Wife of Murugesan. Second and Third Defendants are the Children of Murugesan and the First Defendant. THE Plaintiff's Husband and Murugesan are Brothers. Case of the Plaintiff is that Murugesan entered into Lease Agreement of Agricultural lands with the Plaintiff on 13.04.1994 and the Plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs.40,000/- to Murugesan and possession is said to have been handed over to the Plaintiff. According to the Plaintiff, she can cultivate the Suit Schedule Property pursuant to the Agreement. THE Agreement is for a period of Five years. It is alleged that from 1996, the Defendants have interfered with the possession of the Plaintiff on 17.08.1996 and on 20.08.1996. Hence, the Plaintiff has filed the Suit in O.S.No.870 of 1996 for Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendants from interfering with the possession of the Plaintiff as per the Lease Agreement dated 13.04.1994.

(3.) AGGRIEVED over the order of dismissal of the Application, the Plaintiff has preferred this Civil Revision Petition. Assailing the Impugned Order, learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner / Plaintiff has submitted that though the document is unregistered, the same could be received in evidence for collateral purpose. It is further submitted that the genuineness or otherwise of the document in question could be gone into only at the time of Trial and it would be pre-mature to express views on the genuineness of the document. In support of his contention that the Court could receive the unregistered document for collateral purposes, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the decisions reported in 2004 (1) L.W. 706 and 1999 (II) M.L.J. 438.