LAWS(MAD)-2016-3-503

A L ALAGAPPAN Vs. K RAMASAMY AND ORS

Decided On March 23, 2016
A L Alagappan Appellant
V/S
K Ramasamy And Ors Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to revise the order dated 03.02.2016 passed in I.A. No. 321 of 2015 in O.S. No. 90 of 2015 by the Principal District Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur and allow the civil revision petition and dismiss the plaint as sought for with cost throughout. The petitioner is the first defendant. The first respondent is the plaintiff and the second respondent is the second defendant in the suit. The first respondent filed a suit in O.S. No. 90 of 2015 for declaration that the settlement deed dated 29.12.2010 executed by the petitioner in favour of the second respondent as null and void and for relief of specific performance and also for permanent injunction. The petitioner and the second respondent filed written statement and are contesting the suit. The petitioner also filed I.A. No. 321 of 2015 to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11, Section 151 of C.P.C. and Section 17(1-A) of Indian Registration Act.

(2.) According to the petitioner, the first respondent is claiming specific performance of agreement of sale dated 25.10.2010. In the said agreement, it has been stated that the possession has been handed over to the first respondent, which amounts to sale of property. In the circumstances, agreement of sale cannot be relied on by the first respondent, as it is not sufficiently stamped and registered. For these reasons, he sought for rejection of plaint.

(3.) The first respondent filed counter affidavit denying the averments made by the petitioner. According to the first respondent, he was examined as P.W. 1 and Ex. A1 to Ex. A6 were marked and suit was adjourned to 16.12.2015, 18.12.2015 and 08.01.2016 for his cross-examination. At that time, the petitioner filed the above application for rejection of plaint. The petitioner has not objected to mark the sale agreement as Ex. A. 2. In the circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to question the admissibility of Ex. A. 2. The first respondent is not enforcing his right of possession under sale agreement Ex. A. 2. Therefore, Section 17(1-A) of Registration Act and Section 35 of the Stamp Act are not applicable. The admissibility of document can be decided only after trial and at the time of delivery of judgment.