P. Shanmugasamy vs Kausalya alias Krishnaveni

S. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.—The revision petitioner is the 7th defendant in the suit O.S.No.163 of 2001 on the file of the II Additional

Sub Court, Villupuram. The revision is filed against the order dated 19.12.2002 made in I.A.No.845 of 2001 refusing to receive the receipt dated

20.1.1970 as unregistered.

The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for partition of her 1/8th share in the suit properties. She also filed I.A.No.845 of 2001 for injunction

restraining the revision petitioner/7th defendant from encumbering or alienating the suit properties pending disposal of the suit. The petition was

opposed by filing counter. During the enquiry of the petition the revision petitioner sought the document dated 20.1.1970 to be received which was

opposed by the plaintiff as it is unregistered. The trial Court because of such objection of the plaintiff, refused to accept the said receipt. The order

is challenged in this revision.

Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/7th defendant argued that the document in question being a receipt, the same can be received.

The learned counsel for the respondent contended that inasmuch as the document is unregistered, it cannot be received and the learned counsel

for the respondent also submitted that inasmuch as the order cannot be challenged by way of revision in this Court, such revision is not

maintainable.

The document dated 20.1.1970 which is styled as receipt is perused. The document is said to have been written by the plaintiff. The document

is sought to be produced by the 7th defendant. As per the document, it is stated that the plaintiff received a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards

relinquishment of her share in the family property, pursuant to the family arrangement. Therefore, it is clear that the document is valued at

Rs.3,000/-. The document, more than Rs.100/- should be registered. The document is not registered and so it need not be received in evidence

and it cannot be looked into for any purpose.

In the decision in Rajamanickam and Others Vs. Elangovan and Others, relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent, this Court held:-

Registration Act, 1908, Section 49 - Evidence Act, 1872, Section 92 - Collateral purpose - Unstamped and unregistered partition deed filed to

establish partition and allotment of properties. Documents cannot be received and admitted in evidence. Documents has to be stamped and

registered.

As regards the maintainability of the revision petition, the learned counsel for the respondent has brought to the notice the decision in C.L. Ramaiah

Thevar Vs. P.C. Balarama Raja, in which, this Court held:-

Revision not maintainable u/s 115 CPC as impugned order is not ""a case decided"". Proviso to Section 115 by clauses(a) and (b) subserves

Revisional Power of the High Court. Order to be revised must decide right or obligation of party. Impugned order does not decide any right or

obligation. Revision is not maintainable.

The other decision relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent is Subbian Vs. Siva Kumar, , in which this Court held:-

Any and every order passed in Course of Suit does not amount to case decided unless such order relates to adjudication of some right or

obligation of the parties. Even if order amounts to ""case decided"" it must still satisfy various clauses enumerated in Section 115(1) in order to

satisfy maintainability of revision petition.

This revision petition is filed challenging the order of the trial Court refusing to accept the document dated 20.1.1970 styled as receipt and as

such, the revision as filed is not maintainable. Further, the revision petitioner is not a party to the said document. The document since unregistered

cannot be received in evidence and looked into for any purpose. As such, the document cannot be received and marked. Considering all these

aspects, the trial Court has rightly refused to receive the receipt in question. The order does not require any change.

In the result, the Civil Revision Petition fails and the same is dismissed with cost. Consequently, the petition C.M.P.No.13161 of 2003 is also

dismissed.