P SANKARA PANDI THEVAR Vs. C ARUMUGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who is the 3rd defendant in O.S.No.266 of 1995 on the file of Principal District Munsif's Court, Ambasamudhram has preferred the revision aggrieved against the order passed in I.A.No.755 of 1997, dated 10.11.1997.

(2.) THE case in brief is as follows THE 1st respondent/plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.266 of 1995 against respondents 2 and 3 and also the petitioner for permanent injunction and other reliefs. THE trial of the case commenced and the petitioner/3rd defendant was examined as D.W.1 and Ex.B-1 an unregistered lease deed was marked in the case. THE 1st respondent/plaintiff objected to the marking of the document on the ground that it is not properly stamped and not registered. THE 1st respondent filed I.A.No.755 of 1997 for rejection of the document Ex.B-1 already marked on the aforesaid ground. THE 3rd defendant opposed the application, stating that only after hearing the objections of the parties, the documents was marked. Ex.B-1 is only a sub-lease and does not require any registration. THE document was marked in the evidence only after giving due and proper notice to the plaintiff, and, as such, the application filed by the 1st respondent/plaintiff has to be dismissed.

(3.) POINT:It is admitted that Ex.B-1 was marked in the case through D.W.1 in the case. The 1st respondent filed I.A.No.755 of 1997 to reject Ex.B-1 and thereupon, after hearing the parties, the lower court allowed the applications. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order passed by the lower court is not proper and correct. Ex.B-1, dated 24.4.1995 is an unregistered document, granting sub-lease of the property measuring about 32 cents of wet land in favour of one Ramalakshmi Ammal, W/o.Sankerapandi Thevar. This property is item No.2 in the plaint schedule. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that even prior to the marking, notice was given to the plaintiff and only after hearing the objections, the document was marked in the case. The learned counsel for the first respondent contended that the document ought not to have been marked in the case since it is not properly stamped and it is not registered. The petitioner would contend that Ex.B-1 is only an assignment of the lease held by the deceased tenant and, as such, it can be marked in the case to prove the collateral purpose of the nature and character of possession. A reading of Ex.B-1 also disclosed that the property was given on sub lease on payment of Rs.1,300 by way of cash.