9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 1286X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 praying for a judgment and decree of partition of the suit property into seven equal shares and to allot one such share to her with separate possession and enjoyment. 4. In the plaint in O.S. No. 469 of 2004, the first respondent would contend thus: (a) The schedule property was purchased in the name of deceased Janakiammal by her husband late K. Venkatesalu, who is none other than the father of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 5. The property was purchased as per registered document dated 15.6.1951 and the entire sale consideration was paid by Thiru K. Venkatesalu though the property was purchased in the name of his wife Janakiammal. Subsequent to the purchase Thiru K. Venkatesalu constructed a bungalow, which was given the name Green Banks . The entire funds for the construction was provided only by late Venkatesalu. His wife Janaki Ammal was only a house wife and she was not having the resources both for purchasing the property as well as to put up the bungalow. (b) The parents of the plaintiff was having only female children and as such the sixth defendant, her son was given in adoption to her parents, as per the deed of declaration of adoption dated 16.6.1983. Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the purpose of purchasing the property as he was only a Supervisor in a Textile Mill at Coimbatore. The beneficiary of the will were either divorcees or were living separately from their spouse and they were also not having any residence to live, which was the sole reason for executing the will in their favour by their mother. The second revision petitioner has also justified her marriage with the seventh defendant. 7. The fifth respondent, who is none other than the son of the first respondent has filed separate written statement. It was his case in the written statement that B schedule property was ancestral joint family property and as such he was entitled to half share in the entire properties and another share out of the share of Venkatesalu. The fifth respondent has also stated that the properties were purchased not by Venkatesalu and the funds of his grand-father Kandasamy Naidu were also utilised for acquiring the property. According to him he was entitled to a larger share than what was stated in the plaint. 8. Subsequently the suit was taken up for trial and P.W.1 was examined and the evidence on the side of the plaintiff was closed. Since the fifth respondent w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to cross examine D.W.1. Accordingly the application was dismissed. It is the said order, which is impugned in the civil revision. CRP (PD) No. 1273 of 2009: 14. The respondent/fifth respondent in CRP (PD).N.1200 of 2009 preferred a suit in O.S. No. 980 of 2009 before the District Munsif Court, Coimbatore against the revision petitioners and their private limited company. The suit is one for injunction. 15. In the plaint in O.S. No. 980 of 2009, the respondent/plaintiff would contend thus: (a) The plaint schedule property originally belonged to his father K. Venkatesalu. He was also having several other properties. The said Venkatesalu died intestate on 17.5.1997 leaving behind him and six daughters. After the death of Venkatesalu, the plaintiff and other legal heirs including the mother Janakiammal were in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as well as other properties left behind by his father. The property was purchased by Venkatesalu out of his own income in the name of his mother Janakiammal and one N. Duraisamy and Damodaran on 15.6.1951. Subsequently a partition was effected between the parties as per document dated 2.1.1961. Thereafter his father constr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r in which witnesses are produced and examined shall be regulated by the law and practice for the time being relating to civil and criminal procedure respectively, and, in the absence of any such law, by the discretion of the court. Section 138 deals with order of examinations which provides that witnesses shall be first examined-in-chief then (if the adverse party so desires) cross examined, then (if the party calling him so desires) re-examined. Section 137 provides examination in chief as well as cross examination and re-examination. Examination of a witness by the party, who calls him is called examination-in-chief. The examination by an adverse party is called cross examination. Similarly, examination of a witness, subsequent to the cross-examination by the party, who called him is called re-examination. 19. Cross examination of a witness is a right given to the opposite party. The law makers have used the word adverse party in so far as the question of cross examination is concerned. Therefore the right to cross examine a witness was given only to the party, having adverse interest in the matter. While considering the question as to whether a party was having interest ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out of his income in the name of mother Janakiammal. However the revision petitioners contended that the father had no independent source of income and it was only with her sthridhana property, mother Janakiammal, purchased the property. 25. The next contention is about the will stated to have been executed by mother Janakiammal in favour of the revision petitioners and others on 8.8.2002 in respect of the plaint A Schedule property. 26. Therefore the challenge in the suit relates to the nature of acquisition as well as the will executed by mother Janakiammal. In such circumstances, the adverse interest has to be considered only as per the pleadings with respect to the acquisition of property by mother Janakiammal as well as the will executed by her. 27. Since the fifth respondent has already filed a suit in O.S. No. 980 of 2009 before the learned District Munsif, Coimbatore and as the orders passed in the said suit was challenged in C.R.P.(PD). No. 1273 of 2009, I had the advantage of reading the plaint in the said suit. In the said suit the fifth respondent has taken a definite stand both with regard to the nature of acquisition as well as execution of will. 28. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the 'inscrutable face of the sphinx', it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking-out. The 'inscrutable face of a sphinx' is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance. (See Chairman and MD, United Commercial Bank v. P.C. Kakkar : (2003(4) SCC 364) PRIMA FACIE CASE: 34. The Supreme Court in M. Gurudas v. Rasaranjan, : 2006 (9) SCALE 275 : (2006) 8 SCC 367 explained as to what is meant by prima facie case thus: 18. While considering an application for injunction, it is well settled, the courts would pass an order thereupon having regard to: (i) Prima facie case (ii) Balance of convenience (iii) Irrepa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
