BALAMANI Vs. KAILASAM KONAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. Plaintiff in O.S.No.406 of 1993 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Arupukottai is the revision petitioner Suit filed by him was for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The plaintiff alleged that on 25.5.1947, there was a panchayat and a partition was effected and the same was recorded in a note book and all the sharers have also affixed their signature in that document. The plaintiff properties were allotted to one of the sharers Karuppiah Konar and on his death, the property devolved on his widow Vellammal and the plaintiff. It is also alleged that the Vellammal also died and the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the property. The defendants are now interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the property wherein the plaintiff has put up a construction. The suit was therefore, filed for declaration and consequential reliefs.

(2.) THE defendant has filed a written statement.

(3.) AS against the said submission, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that if the document is not admissible under any law, the court cannot mark it against the provisions of law, The court is therefore, competent to set aside the marking of the document. It is further submitted, the document is marked only for proving partition and it is only of the document the partition has taken place which requires registration and therefore, it cannot be used as evidence at all.