Karuppannan vs Thavasiappan and President Gobichettipalayam Co-operative Society Limited

S. Rajeswaran, J.—This Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 28.1.2005 made in O.S. No. 122/2004 on the file of the

District Munsif Court, Gobichettipalayam.

The plaintiff is the revision petitioner.

The suit O.S. No. 102/1999 has been filed by the plaintiff/revision petitioner for partition and separate possession and for injunction, on the file

of the Sub-Judge, Gobichettipalayam against the respondents/defendants. The first respondent filed ritten statement and contested the suit.

Subsequently the suit was transferred to the District Munsif Court, Gobichettipalayam and re-numbered as O.S. No. 122/2004. Pending disposal

of the suit, the plaintiff/revision petitioner filed an Application in I .A. No. 1460/2004 under Order 7 Rule 14(3) for receiving the additional

document, namely, the release deed dated 14.8.1994. The 1st respondent filed a counter and raised objections that the release deed was

insufficiently stamped, unregistered and also forged and consequently it was inadmissible in evidence. The court below received the document

stating that the question of forgery and admissibility can be decided at a later stage and allowed the I.A. as there was no valid objection for

condoning the de lay and granting leave to file the document. The 1st respondent thereafter did not challenge the said order passed in I.A. No.

1460/2004.

When the plaintiff/revision petitioner came to the box to give evidence, the counsel for the 1st respondent raised an objection that the release

deed dated 14.8.1994 was not sufficiently stamped and it was unregistered too and therefore it should be admitted in evidence. Accepting the

objections raised by the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent herein, the learned District Munsif rejected the release deed to be marked as an

exhibit on the ground that it was insufficiently stamped and unregistered. Aggrieved by the said order of the trial court, the plaintiff/revision

petitioner has filed the above Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent. I have also gone through the documents and

the judgments relied on by them in support of their submissions.

The learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner relied on the judgment reported in 2002(3) CTC 739 (Chellammal v. Menakshi) and

submitted that the lower court erred in rejecting the document on the ground that it was not properly stamped it was unregistered also, without

giving an opportunity to the plaintiff. In this judgment, in para 6 and 7, this Court has held as follows:

It is well settled in law that when a document is tendered in evidence by either party and objection is raised against the same on the ground that

the document is not duly stamped u/s 35 of the Indian Stamp Act or for want of registration a s contemplated u/s 17 read with Section 49 of the

Registration Act, 1908, it is obligatory on the part of the court to apply its mind to the objections raised and to decide the objection in accordance

with law. In other words, no document could be admitted on its face value irrespective of the fact whether it is duly stamped or otherwise; not it

could be rejected as inadmissible for the same reason or otherwise for want of registration automatically.

It is also well settled in law that there is no impediment for admitting a document which is merely unregistered even for collateral purposes, as the

unregistered documents can be looked into for collateral purposes and thereafter could be admittedly the trial Court, as repeatedly held in: (i)

Krishnaswami Naidu v. Secretary of State AIR 1953 Mad. 15; (ii) Kovilpatti Sri Dhandayuthapani Trust v. Tilakaraj 1993 (1) MLJ 552; (iii)

Kousalya Ammal Vs. Valliammai Ammal and Another, ; and (iv) M.K. Varappan v. Sri Lakshminara palaswami Temple by its Executive Officer

1997 (3) L.W 27.

Following the said decision, it is held in Ayyavu and Ors. v. Shanti Bibi and Ors. 2001 (1) L.W 466 that admissibility of documents for collateral

purpose is permissible in law.

Per contra, the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent while raising objection for the document being admitted, submitted that the document can

be impounded for not being sufficiently stamped and for non-registration and this cannot be taken asece of evidence. In support of his submission,

he relied on the judgment reported in 2006 (I) TNLJ 226 (N. Karuppan v. Periyapandi and Anr.).

The trial court by order dated 28.1.2005 refused to mark the release deed dated 14.8.1994 on the ground that it was neither registered nor

adequately stamped. The correctness of this order is questioned before me.

It is well settled in law that even an unregistered document can be admitted as an evidence as the same can be looked into for collateral

purpose. At the same time the admissibility of the unregistered document is not automatic if the same is only stamped. If the revision petitioner is

willing to pay the deficit stamp duty as well as the penalty on the same, the unregistered release deed dated 14.8.1994 may be admitted as

evidence and the trial court thereafter to apply its mind as to the merits of admissibility of the document irrespective of the fact whether the

document is registered or unregistered document is also admissible for collateral purpose.

In the present case, the trial court clearly erred in law in refusing to mark the document as an Exhibit solely on the ground that it is an

unregistered and inadequately stamped document. Therefore I am inclined to interfere with the order of trial court dated 28.1.2005

The trial court is directed to mark the document in question as an exhibit if the revision petitioner/plaintiff is willing to remit the deficit portion of

the stamp duty together with the penalty. The admissibility or otherwise of a document co be gone into by the trial court on merits thereafter to find

out whether the document is relied on for collateral purpose or not.

With the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed by setting aside the order of the trial court. No costs. C.M.P. No. 2431/2005

is closed.