SUBRAMANIAM Vs. GUNASUNDARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner is the first defendant in the suit. THE suit has been filed for partition and separate possession by the first respondent herein stating that the first respondent constitutes a Hindu Joint Family along with defendants 1 and 2 and she is a co-parcener in the suit schedule properties and that she is entitled to one share as per Section 29-A of the Hindu Successions Act and as the first defendant/revision petitioner is said to have executed a settlement deed in favour of the second defendant/second respondent herein, and sale deed in favour of the third defendant/3rd respondent on 25.09.1992, the suit was necessitated as the petitioner/first defendant do not have the right to alienate the share of the first respondent.

(2.) THE petitioner/first defendant resisted the suit stating that she was not in possession and the plaintiff eloped and got married in the year 1991 and that in a Panchayat arranged at her instance on 03.11.1991, she agreed to receive a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards her share. ON 13.05.1993, the said family arrangement was reduced into writing under which the first respondent/plaintiff received Rs.50,000/- and gave away her rights in the suit property. THE said agreement was signed by the parties concerned in the presence of Panchayatdars and that the first respondent/plaintiff do not have right to question the right of the petitioner/first defendant n the suit property and hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) IN AIR 1971 SC 1070 (Jupudi V. Pulavarthi) the Honourable Supreme Court held that in view of Sections 35 and 36, secondary evidence by way of oral evidence or copy of document insufficiently stamped is not admissible in a suit even though objection to its admissibility cannot be taken under the Evidence Act.