P. SUBRAMANIAM vs KEERTHANA

2026:MHC:4307
C.R.P. No.3401 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26-10-2026
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL
C.R.P. NO. 3401 OF 2023
{C.N.R. No.HCMA011653252023}
AND
C.M.P. NO. 21099 OF 2023
P. Subramaniam
S/o. Late. Palaniappan,
Door No 65/40A, Perumal Kovil Theru,
Senthamangalam Post,
Namakkal District.
...Petitioner /
th
4 Respondent /
th
4 Defendant
-versus-
1. Keerthana
D/o. Selvam,
G.N.Mills, S.M.Palayam, Priya complex,
Coimbatore Taluk and District
Now residing at Door No. 177/1, Kalaivani
Nagar, Mohanur Road,
st
Namakkal Town. ...1 Respondent /
Petitioner /
Plaintiff
2. Selvam
S/o. Late.Kumarasamy Gounder,
Nearby Police Station, Senthamangalam
Village Namakkal District,
now residing at Door No. 62/48E,
Mohanur Road, Namakkal Town.
Page No.1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:25:59 pm )

2026:MHC:4307
C.R.P. No.3401 of 2023
3. Vasanth
S/o. Selvam
Nearby Police Station, Senthamangalam
Village Namakkal District,
now residing at Door No. 62/48E,
Mohanur Road, Namakkal Town
4. S.R.Murugan Chettiyar
S/o. S.R.Ramanathan Chettiyar,
Ahraharatheru, Senthamangalam Village and
Post, Namakkal District.
...Respondents 2 to 4 /
Respondents 2 to 4 /
Defendants 1 to 3
PRAYER :- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950, praying to set aside the Fair and Final Order
dated August 12, 2023 passed in I.A. No.09 of 2023 in O.S. No. 172 of
2009 on the file of Additional Sub Court, Namakkal.
For Petitioner : Mr. P.Navaneetha Krishnan
For Respondent No.1
: Mr. S. Thirumurugan for Mr.S.Senthil
Respondents Nos.2 & 4
: Served – No appearance
Respondent No.3 : Left India.
Page No.2 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:25:59 pm )

2026:MHC:4307
C.R.P. No.3401 of 2023
O R D E R
The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227
of the Constitution of India, 1950, challenging the Order dated August 12,
2023 passed in I.A. No.9 of 2023 in O.S. No.172 of 2009 on the file of 'the
Additional Sub Court, Namakkal' ['Trial Court' for short].
2. The revision petitioner herein is the fourth defendant, the first
respondent herein is the plaintiff, and respondents 2 to 4 herein are
defendants 1 to 3, in the Original Suit. For the sake of convenience, the
parties will hereinafter be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.
3. The Original Suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking a declaration
that the 'General Power of Attorney Deed' ['G.P.A.' for short] dated August
05, 2005 executed by the plaintiff and the second defendant in favour of
their father / first defendant in respect of suit properties, is not binding on
the plaintiff, and seeking partition of the suit properties into three equal
shares and allotment of one such share to the plaintiff, besides other reliefs.
According to the plaintiff, she was a minor on the date of execution of the
G.P.A. and therefore, it is invalid in law.
Page No.3 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:25:59 pm )

2026:MHC:4307
C.R.P. No.3401 of 2023
4. The fourth defendant filed written statement inter-alia contending
that the plaintiff was born on June 02, 1987.
5. The parties went to trial. The plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1
and marked her birth certificate as Ex-A.4 to support her case that she was
born on October 30, 1987. The fourth defendant during the course of his
evidence disputed the validity of the said birth certificate as false and
fabricated, for which contention, he relied upon (i) Driving Licence
Application (Ex-C.2), (ii) Aadhaar Card (Ex-C.3) and (iii) Driving Licence
Extract (Ex-C.4). Both sides' evidence was closed and the case was posted
for arguments. Hence, the plaintiff filed I.A. No.9 of 2023 seeking to
reopen the plaintiff’s side evidence for the purpose of examining the Chief
Doctor of P.N. Hospital, Mohanur Road, Namakkal, where she was
allegedly born, in order to establish her date of birth. The Trial Court, after
hearing both sides, allowed the application subject to payment of costs.
Aggrieved by the said Order, the fourth defendant has preferred the present
Civil Revision Petition.
6. Mr. P.Navaneetha Krishnan, learned Counsel appearing for the
revision petitioner / fourth defendant would submit that the plaintiff’s date
of birth is June 02, 1987, as reflected in her school certificate, Aadhaar
Card and driving licence-related documents. However, Ex-A.4 - Birth
Page No.4 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:25:59 pm )

2026:MHC:4307
C.R.P. No.3401 of 2023
Certificate discloses her date of birth as October 30, 1987. He would
contend that school certificate ought to be given precedence over birth
certificate and that the plaintiff is estopped from taking a contrary stand.
The learned Counsel would also submit that there is no necessity to
examine the doctor of the hospital where the plaintiff was allegedly born.
The petition was filed when the matter was posted for arguments, only
with a view to cause delay and harass the fourth defendant. Therefore, the
learned Counsel would pray that the Order passed by the Trial Court be set
aside and the Civil Revision Petition be allowed.
7. In response, Mr. Thirumurugan, learned Counsel appearing for the
first respondent / plaintiff, would submit that the plaintiff was examined as
P.W.1 and she marked her birth certificate in support of her case as Ex-A.4.
Since the fourth defendant disputed the validity of the said birth certificate,
it became necessary for the plaintiff to establish its genuineness by
examining the doctor concerned from the hospital where she was born. The
learned Counsel would further submit that the Trial Court, after
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, rightly allowed the
application and no prejudice would be caused to the fourth defendant by
permitting such evidence to be adduced. Accordingly, the learned Counsel
would pray for dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition.
Page No.5 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:25:59 pm )

2026:MHC:4307
C.R.P. No.3401 of 2023
8. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned
Counsels on either side and perused the materials available on record.
9. It is seen that the documents relied upon by the revision
petitioner, including the driving licence-related documents, Aadhaar Card
and school certificate, discloses the plaintiff's date of birth as June 02,
1987, whereas the birth certificate relied upon by the plaintiff records her
date of birth as October 30, 1987. The plaintiff seeks to establish the
correctness of the date of birth recorded in the birth certificate by
examining the doctor concerned from the hospital where she was allegedly
born.
10. In the above circumstances, the questions as to which of the
documents reflects the plaintiff's correct date of birth, whether the birth
certificate is genuine and reliable, and whether the plaintiff is estopped
from taking a stand contrary to the particulars contained in the other
documents are matters to be considered and decided at the final stage, on
the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties. At this stage, it would not
be appropriate to foreclose the plaintiff's opportunity to adduce evidence in
support of her case.
Page No.6 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:25:59 pm )

2026:MHC:4307
C.R.P. No.3401 of 2023
11. The purpose of permitting the plaintiff to reopen her evidence is
to enable her to examine the doctor concerned and establish the date of
birth recorded in the birth certificate. The mere permission to adduce such
evidence would not, by itself, establish the correctness of the plaintiff's
claim or prejudice the rights of the fourth defendant, who would be at
liberty to contest the evidence and cross-examine the witness in
accordance with law.
12. In order to afford both parties a fair and reasonable opportunity
to establish their respective cases, this Court is of the view that no
interference with the Order passed by the Trial Court is warranted. The
Trial Court has considered the relevant circumstances and rightly allowed
the application subject to payment of costs. This Court finds no illegality,
irregularity or perversity in the Order warranting interference under Article
227 of the Constitution of India, 1950.
13. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. The
Order dated August 12, 2023 passed in I.A. No.9 of 2023 in O.S. No.172
of 2009 by the Trial Court, is hereby confirmed. The Trial Court shall
proceed with the trial in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any
observations made herein on the merits of the rival claims regarding the
plaintiff's date of birth. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
Page No.7 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:25:59 pm )

2026:MHC:4307
C.R.P. No.3401 of 2023
case, there shall be no Order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Civil
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
26-10-2026
Index: Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes
JRS
To:
The Additional Sub Court, Namakkal.
Page No.8 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:25:59 pm )

2026:MHC:4307
C.R.P. No.3401 of 2023
R.SAKTHIVEL J.
JRS
C.R.P. NO. 3401 OF 2023
AND
C.M.P. NO. 21099 OF 2023
26 -10-2026
Page No.9 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:25:59 pm )