KALIAPERUMAL Vs. PANKAJAVALLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER filed a suit in O.S.No.137 of 1986 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli for partition of suit properties claiming 1/2 share for himself and his sister. The second defendant in the suit has contended that suit items 1 and 2 were given to her on lease by the first defendant. It is also contended by her that the above items are sold by the 1st defendant and 4th defendant to defendants 6 and 7, and they surrendered possession of items 1 and 2 to defendants 6 and 7 for valuable consideration. It is contended by the petitioner that the first respondent herein is suffering from mental disability and third parties exploited the position and defendants 6 and 7 arranged to get Sale deed fraudulently.

(2.) IT is also stated that the husband of the respondent filed I.A.No.169 of 1993 praying for a direction to examine and cross-examine the first respondent herein. On 28.3.1994, the trial court dismissed that petition. Petitioner in this revision is one of the respondent in that Interlocutory application. This revision is filed by the petitioner on the basis of so called observations made in that order. According to the petitioner, the earlier application was dismissed only on the ground that, that is not the stage for examination of witness and the said decision is not a bar for seeking permission to examine the second defendant when the matter came for trial. According to the petitioner, the request of the petitioner was rejected for improper reasons. IT is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the observations by the lower court that the request for examination of second defendant is not maintainable in view of the earlier order in I.A.No.169 of 1993 is not correct and the same require reconsideration. IT is also the case of the petitioner that the second defendant is deaf and sums and infirm and she is not a person to look after herself. IT is only exploiting her weakness documents have been created and if only her presence is made available in the court, the court will be satisfied that she is incapable of looking after herself and the documents are also invalid. Petitioner wanted the second defendant also to be examined.

(3.) IN Narayana Pillai v. Kalyani Ammal, 1963 K.L.T. 537 it is held that the practice of party causing his opponent to be summoned as witness was disapproved in rather strong terms by the Lordships of Privy Council and that as a matter of right, the party cannot have the opposite party as witness.