VALARMATHI Vs. KASTHURI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CIVIL revision petition filed against the fair and decretal order dated 31.08.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Munsif, Chengam, Tiruvannamalai District in I.A.No,243 of 2006 in O.S.No.127 of 2006. Inveighing and impugning upon the order dated 31.08.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Munsif, Chengam, Tiruvannamalai District in I.A.No,243 of 2006 in O.S.No.127 of 2006, the defendants 1 to 5 has preferred this civil revision petition.

(2.) A summation and summarization of the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this civil revision would run thus: The respondents 2 and 3 viz., Devi and Maragatham herein/plaintiffs filed the suit O.S.No.127 of 2006 seeking the following reliefs: - directing a partition of suit schedule of properties into four equal shares taking into good and bad soil by metes and bounds into consideration through a commissioner appointed by this Court and allot two such share to the plaintiffs. - to deliver possession of - th share allotted to the plaintiff through court, free of obstructions of the defendants. - direct an enquiry made under Order 20 Rule 12 CPC into mesne profits from the date of the suit to the date on which the properties are given possession of the plaintiff and to determine the amount of future mesne profits and direct the defendants to pay the plaintiff to the amount to be determined. The defendants filed the written statement while so, I.A.No,243 of 2006 was filed by the sixth defendant Kasthuri Ammal under Rule 75 (1) of the Civil Rules of Practice r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure so as to summon the following documents from the sub registrar office concerned: Tamil The lower court allowed the prayer subject to payment of cost. Being disconcerted and aggrieved by the order of the lower Court, this revision petition is focussed on various grounds inter alia thus: The order of the lower court is against law, weight of evidence as it was passed without taking into consideration the plea of res judicata as put forth on the side of the defendants 1 to 5 based on the fact that in the previous suit in O.S.No,592 of 1996, the same dispute was decided finally but the lower court failed to consider it. The alleged thumb impression of Amuchi Ammal found in the sale deed dated 7.3.1967 is not an admitted one by the defendants and hence summoning that document for comparison purpose, so as to verify the genuineness of the purported thumb impression of Amuchi Ammal in the settlement deed dated 15.10.1990 executed by Amuchi Ammal in favour of Arumugam S/o Gunasekaran does not arise. Accordingly, they prayed for setting aside the order of the lower court.

(3.) THE defendant No.1, who was expected to produce the main document, viz., Settlement Deed dated 15.10.1990 on her side could not produce the same for some reasons, which at present, this Court need not delve deep into and it is for the lower court to decide her plea at the appropriate stage. D6 with an intention to expose the falsity of D1's case wanted to summon those documents and as such, the prayer cannot be labelled or dubbed as illegal. THE plea of res judicata or estoppel - there is no concinnity in using of the terms res judicata as well as estoppel in the pleadings and it is for the lower court to decide at the appropriate stage - so to say, while disposing of the suit itself and not at the time of disposing of the present I.A.