S.R. SRIDHAR Vs. VENKITAPATHY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CIVIL Revision Petitions are filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 03.04.2013 in I.A. Nos. 183 and 184 of 2013 in O.S. No. 205 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Palladam.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the revision petitioner/second plaintiff submits that the first plaintiff, who is none other than the wife of the deceased Venugopalasamy, filed a suit for declaration of title and also recovery of possession and granting to pay past mesne profits of Rs. 25,000/ - per annum and future mesne profits. During pendency of the suit, she died. During her life time, she executed a Will in favour of the second plaintiff/revision petitioner herein, who stepped into the shoes of the first plaintiff and contested the suit. The respondents/defendants are none other than the sister's son of Venugopalasamy. He further submits that both the parties have admitted that the suit property is owned by Venugopalasamy. Evidence of defendants heard in part and when the suit was posted for cross -examination, the defendants/respondents herein have come forward with the applications in I.A. Nos. 183 and 184 of 2013 for reception of additional documents and also recall D.W.1 for marking of those documents. The documents they sought for to be marked are only photographs. In the affidavit filed in support of the application in I.A. No. 183 of 2013 itself, the respondents/defendants stated that negatives of the said photographs are not available. Without negatives, the documents are inadmissible in evidence. But the trial Court without considering the above aspect, allowed the applications. Therefore, he prayed for allowing the revision petitions.

(3.) CONSIDERED the rival submissions made on both sides and perused the materials available on record.