RANGANATHA GOUNDER Vs. PERUMAL NATTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in O.S. No. 859 of 1995 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Villupuram, is the revision-petitioner. The respondent is the plaintiff in that suit. The suit is for declaration of title in respect of D Schedule property and for recovery of possession of the said property free from obstruction and for mesne profits. During the course of trial, a document dated 22-6-1995 stated to have been executed by the defendant in the suit to the plaintiff therein, was sought to be marked. The marking and the admissibility of that document was objected to by the defendant. The learned trial Judge by order dated 18-7-1998 held that the said document is admissible in evidence. Hence the present Revision before this Court on that issue.

(2.) I heard Mr. V. Raghavachari, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. K. Kannan, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. At this stage, this Court is concerned only with the admissibility of the document referred to above. The document in Tamil is dated 22-6-1995 stated to have been executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. The sum and substance of the document in English translation is as follows :

(3.) Mr. V. Raghavachari, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, therefore contended that the order of the Court below is bad in law and the document shall not be received in evidence. Mr. K. Kannan, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent would state that there is no legal right in favour of the defendant as a lessee when he executed the document in question and when that is so, he cannot validly transfer or extinguish any such alleged right in the property. Therefore, according to him, the document is not hit by Secs. 17(1)(b) and 49(c) of the Act. In elaborating this argument, he would add that there is no lease document between the parties and, therefore, there is no legal right in the defendant. Applying my mind to the argument of the learned Counsel for the respondent, I find that no foundation is laid for such an argument. It must be noticed that the plaintiff himself relies upon this document. Mr. V. Raghavachari, in support of his contention that this document requires compulsory registration and in the absence of the same, it shall not be received in evidence, brought to my notice three judgments viz. Rangayya Appa Rau v. Kameswara Rau, (1897) ILR 20 Mad 367 : 7 Mad LJ 59 (DB); Neelakanta Rao v. State of Mysore, AIR 1960 Mys 87 (DB) and M. S. Ram Singh v. B. S. Surana, AIR 1972 Cal 190 (DB). In the first case, the plaintiff was a Zamindar and the defendant was a tenant. He sued for declaration of his title and for possession of certain land of which the first defendant had been in possession as a tenant. It appears that the tenant having fallen into difficulties executed a document on the 20th June, 1888 addressed to the plaintiff in the following terms :