Ram Mandiri and Another vs Ranganatha Naidu

Pratap Singh, J.—This civil revision petition is directed against the order passed by District Munsif, Ranipet, admitting the document, which

is marked as Ex. B-2.

Short facts are: The petitioners have filed the suit in O.S. No. 368 of 1993 for permanent injunction against the respondent. That was resisted

by the respondent. Then trial had commenced. The second petitioner was examined as P.W. 1. He was cross-examined by the learned Counsel

for the respondent. During cross-examination, it was elicited that they had filed the suit against the respondent and his brother in O.S. No. 289 of

1989 in the trial court and they initiated the court that they had settled the matter out of court and then the suit was dismissed and that Ex. B-1 is

copy of the decree. It was further elicited from him that the suit property in this suit was the suit property in the prior suit also. Then it was elicited

from him that there was a panchayat in the presence of certain named persons. Then he was questioned about the muchalika written in that

panchayat. Though he initially denied, later he has admitted that a muchalika was written in that panchayat and that he has signed in it and that Ex.

B-2 is that panchayat muchalika. The marking of that document was objected. The learned District Munsif had rejected the objection on the

ground that no reasons whatsoever were stated for marking of the document and so the objections were rejected. Against the order of the learned

Magistrate, marking the muchalika as Ex. B-2 this revision petition is filed.

Mr. R. Subramanian, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the muchalika deed would amount to a partition and

that it was not registered and hence it did not satisfy the provisions of the Registration Act and should not have been admitted in evidence.

I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel. The first thing is that no such ground was put forth before the court

below while marking of the document was objected to. Secondly, as per the evidence given by P.W. 1, there was a muchalika written in the

panchayat and he had signed in it. The certified copy of this Ex. B-2 is filed along with the petition. On a careful perusal of the same, I find that it

does not require any registration. In it, it is stated that all the five persons mentioned have settled the matter concerned in O.S. No. 368 of 1993. It

is also stated that hereafter with regard to that site, there was no dispute between the parties. Thereafter certain specific extents had been specified.

It does not state that only by virtue of this document, the partition was effected between the parties. So I am unable to accept the submission made

by the learned Counsel. Thirdly, within the narrow confine of Section 15, C.P.C., the order admitting a document in evidence at a time when no

grounds were stated in the objection in the same, cannot be agitated by way of a revision.

In view of the above, the revision petition does not deserve admission and shall stand dismissed.