Loading...

K.Kumarasamy vs Vasanthi @ Jayanthi on 27 October, 2006

Madras High Court
K.Kumarasamy vs Vasanthi @ Jayanthi on 27 October, 2006
       

  

  

 
 
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED:  27.10.2006

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SATHASIVAM


C.R.P.(PD)No.473  of 2006


1.K.Kumarasamy

2.K.Ravi			.. Petitioners

	Vs.

1.Vasanthi @ Jayanthi

2.M.Arasu			.. Respondents



	Civil Revision Petition  under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code against the fair and decreetal order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee dated 28.11.2005 in I.A.No.748 of 2005 in O.S.No.29 of 2004.
 

For petitioner    :   Mr.Bharath Chakravarthy

For respondents	  :   Mr.M.L.Ramesh


ORDER

The only grievance of the petitioners/defendants as referred to in the impugned order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee, is that the first respondent/plaintiff are not entitled to file a copy of the partition deed dated 02.11.1995 when the existence of the said partition deed itself is denied. It is seen from the affidavit filed in support of the application before the Sub Court, Poonamallee, that after making necessary averment in the plaint, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff issued notice directing the defendants to produce the original partition deed dated 02.11.1995. Since there was no compliance, the plaintiff has filed an application for the same. By the impugned order, the learned Subordinate Judge after finding that the plaintiff is having a copy of the same, though the defendants denied the execution of the suit partition deed, permitted the plaintiff to file a copy of the partition deed dated 02.11.1995. It is made clear that merely because the learned Subordinate Judge has permitted the plaintiff to file the copy of the partition deed, it does not mean that the genuineness of the said document is accepted. In other words, it is for the plaintiff to establish the fact that there was a partition on 02.11.1995 among the first defendant and his brothers. When such remedy is available and the same can be decided at the time of trial, I do not find any valid ground to interfere with the impugned order at this stage.

2. With the above observation, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.

raa

To

1. TheSubordinate Judge,
Poonamallee.

2. The Record Keeper,
VR Section,
High Court,
Madras.

[PRV/8399]

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information