A V S PERUMAL Vs. VADIVELU ASARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above civil revision petition was taken up for final disposal by one of us (the Hon'ble the Chief Justice). At the time of hearing of the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed the correctness of; the ruling in Manicka Mudaliar v. Shanmugasundara Mudaliar, reported in (1982) 95 Mad LW 297. Finding substance prima facie in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner, my Lord, -the Chief Justice directed the civil revision petition to be posted before a Division Bench, and the matter is thus before us. We shall first set out the facts leading to the filing of the civil revision petition before considering the proposition of law laid down in Manicka Mudaliar's case supra.

(2.) The petitioner is the defendant in O.S. 252 of 1981, on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Tiruchengode. The respondent herein filed the said suit for declaration of his right to continue in possession of the suit property as lessee and for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner herein and his adherents from forcibly evicting him except under due process of law. It is not necessary for out purpose to set out the details of the facts of the case. The suit was resisted on various grounds by the petitioner herein. Before the trial Court, no, oral evidence was let in by either side. However, both sides filed documents and they were admitted and exhibited as Exs. A. I to A. 24 on the side of the plaintiff and Exs. B.1 to B. 12 on the side of the defendant. We may at once state that from the papers produced before us, there is nothing to show that the parties to the suit made any endorsement to the effect that the document were marked subject to admissibility, proof and relevancy. There is also nothing to show that they made any endorsement to the effect that they admit the contents in the respective documents marked as exhibits. The trial Court in paragraph 9 of the judgment. has stated as follows : -

(3.) The learned District Judge, taking up the appeal as well as I.A. 321 of 1982, passed a common judgment on 23-12-1982, and disposed of the appeal and the interlocutory application in the following manner: