MATHURESAN Vs. DURAISAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first defendant in O. S. No. 121 of 2001, on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif, Karaikudi, is the petitioner herein. The respondent is the plaintiff in the suit. The petitioner challenges the order dated 18. 03. 2005 made in I. A. No. 93 of 2005.

(2.) THE respondent has filed the above suit for declaration of title and for recovery of possession of the suit property from the defendants and also for mesne profits. It is the case of the plaintiff that he has purchased the suit property from one Rasu Nadar and others by means of a registered sale deed dated 27. 07. 2000. The title so claimed by the plaintiff is disputed by the defendants.

(3.) DURING the trial, the above said Rasu Nadar was examined as D. W. 3 on the side of the defendants. A proof affidavit was filed by way of chief examination, where he has stated that the sale deed said to have been executed in favour of the plaintiff, was not consciously executed and as a matter of fact, by misrepresentation, his signature was obtained in the sale deed and he has also stated that the possession was with the defendants. But, during cross examination by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, D. W. 3 has stated that the suit property was sold in favour of the plaintiff and from that date onwards, the plaintiff has been in possession of the suit property. Though he has stated in the chief examination that without reading the sale deed, he signed the same, in cross examination he has stated that he has signed the document only after consciously knowing the contents of the same. He has further stated that in the proof affidavit filed by way of chief examination, he has signed the same only because of the intimidation of the petitioner herein by keeping him at Devakottai.