SAMBANDAM Vs. GURU CHANDRASEKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S. No.17 of 1993 in the Court of District Munsif, Mayiladuthurai. THEy filed a suit for declaration of their possessory title to the suit property which is in T.S.No.59 within Mayiladuthurai Town and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with their peaceful enjoyment of this piece of land. THE allegation in the plaint is to the effect that the ground site of this property belongs to Arulmigu Kumarakattalai Sri Subramaniaswamy Devasthanam. THE father of the defendants/ respondents, by name Kuppusamy, the original lessee of this land has assigned his lease-hold right therein in favour of one Kasambu Achi by means of a hand-letter dated 25.2.1977 executed for a consideration of Rs.3.000, THE said Kuppusamy has also conveyed the land in favour of the said Kasambu under the registered sale-deed dated 22.12.1976. Kasambu and her husband Narayanasamy are no more. Revision petitioners are the sons of the brother of Kasambu. THEy are enjoying the trees in the suit properly. Since the respondents tried to cut the trees in the suit property and tried to take forcible possession of the same, they have come forward with this action. THE respondents resisted the suit contending that the suit property as well as the back-yard of the 2nd respondent's house form one unit and are enclosed by a fence. Revision petitioners were never in enjoyment of this property. THE documents relied on by them are fabricated. THE alleged hand-letter dated 25.2.1977 is a forged one. THE property was never delivered to the revision petitioners pursuant to the hand-letter.

(2.) IN the trial court, the revision petitioners sought to file the hand-letter dated 25.2.1977 in evidence atleast for the collateral purposes under Sec.49 of the Registration Act. On the objection of the respondents, learned District Munsif, refused to receive it in evidence stating that the relief claimed in the suit is based on this hand-letter and it has not been filed for any collateral purpose. Plaintiffs assail this order in this revision petition.

(3.) IN Isa Adam v. Bai Mariam, A.l.R. 1927 Bom. 664. a Division Bench of Bombay High Court took the view that the interlocutory order of the lower court rejecting certain evidence as inadmissible during the pendency of the suit is not revisable.