RETHINASAMY Vs. AMSAVALLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein is the defendant in O.S.No.452 of 2004. THE petitioner herein/defendant has filed I.A.No.50/2004 seeking to condone the delay in filing a document, which is an unregistered sale deed said to have been executed by the plaintiff and her mother in favour of the defendant. THE learned Additional District Munsif, Mayiladuthurai, dismissed the application on the ground that an unregistered sale deed cannot be marked even for collateral purpose. THE trial court observed in its order that since the plaintiff admitted the possession of the petitioner herein/defendant and the suit itself only for recovery of possession, the document which is to be marked for the collateral purpose cannot be accepted.

(2.) MR.S.Sounther, the learned counsel for the petitioner herein/defendant contended that the document is a unregistered sale deed executed by the plaintiff and her mother during 1979. According to him, the practice in that particular area was that though a property is sold by executing the sale deed, it is not registered. Further, it is true that the possession of the defendant was admitted by the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, the defendant is in possession of the property from six months prior to filing of the suit. But according to the defendant, he was in possession of the property from 1979 onwards. Therefore, the defendant would have dispossessed the plaintiff at least six months prior to the suit. For that purpose, the defendant wants to mark an unregistered sale deed said to have been executed by the plaintiff and her mother. For the purpose of producing the said sale deed, the defendant has filed I.A.No.50/2006 to condone the delay in producing the said document. The trial Court dismissed the said application. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.