Madras High Court
Ranganathan vs Jayamani on 21 December, 2015
Author: G.Chockalingam
Bench: G.Chockalingam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21-12-2015 (Orders reserved on 16-12-2015) CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM C.R.P.(PD).No.2071 of 2013 & M.P.No.1 of 2013 1. Ranganathan 2. Dhanraj .. Petitioners Vs. 1. Jayamani 2. Rajamani .. Respondents Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the docket order dated 28.03.2013 in O.S.No.508 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Sub-Court, Coimbatore. For petitioners : Mr.P.Saravana Sowmiyan For respondents : Mr.V.Anandha Moorthy ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the docket order dated 28.03.2013 in O.S.No.508 of 2006 passed by the learned Principal Sub-Judge, Coimbatore, in rejecting the marking of release deed, dated 24.04.1988.
2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants contended that the document produced on the side of the revision petitioners/defendants, namely the release deed, dated 24.04.1988 is only a partition release deed and it is not hit by the provisions of Section 49 of the Registration Act and it can be received as evidence in the Court. He further submitted that the learned trial Judge has not assigned valid reason for not permitting to mark the document by paying stamp duty and penalty. Since the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in passing the impugned order, the same may be set aside and the revision petitioners/defendants may be permitted to mark the document on their side and he prayed that the Civil Revision Petition may be allowed.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs contended that the learned trial Judge, after analysing the document and the provisions of the Registration Act regarding the marking of the document and the stamp duty, came to correct conclusion and hence, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and he prayed that the Civil Revision Petition may be dismissed.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
5. Admittedly, the suit is filed by the respondents/plaintiffs for partition and the suit is in the stage of trial. At this stage, the revision petitioners/defendants wanted to mark the said document. It is alleged by the revision petitioners that the document is a partition release deed, that it does not require registration and it may be marked and received as evidence on their side. The alleged document reads as follows:
@ghfghj;jpa tpLjiyg; gj;jpuk;@ 1988k; tUlk; Vg;uy; khjk; 24k; njjp nfhit khefh; rp';fey;Y}h; post ,uh$yl;Rkp kpy;!; vjph;g[uk; ////u';fehjd;(1) jduh$;(2) c';fs; ,UtUf;Fk;
////// uh$hkzp (1). b$akzp (2) Mfpa eh';fs; vGjp bfhLj;j ghfghj;jpa tpLjiy xg;ge;jk; vd;dbtdpy;
ek; midtUf;Fk; gpJuh$pj tifapy; ghj;jpag;gl;l cg;gpypghisak; fpuhkk; f/r/633 and 636y; v';fspUtUf;Fk; eP';fs; jdpj;jdpahf 3 K:d;W brz;l; tPjk; 0/06 MW brz;l ,lj;ij fpiuak; bra;J bfhLg;gjhf fpiua mf;fphpbkz;l; vGjp bfhLj;J ,Uf;fpwPh;fs;/ nkw;go fpiua mf;fphpbkz;Lf;F fl;Lg;gl;l ,lk; eP';fyhf kPjk; cs;s ,l brhj;Jf;fis gw;wp v';fspUtUf;nfh v';fspUthpd; jdUz thhpRfSf;nfh vt;tpj ghj;jpaKk; rk;ke;jKk; gpd; bjhlh;g[[k; fpilahJ/ ,e;jg;gof;F eh';fs; ,UtUk; kdbkhj;J rk;kjpj;J vGjp itj;Jf; bfhLj;j ghfghj;jpa tpLjiy xg;ge;jg; gj;jpuk;/@
6. The said document is signed by both he plaintiffs and it has been engrossed with stamp duty of Rs.2/-, 0.25p and 025p, non-judicial stamps. On a reading of the entire document, it is seen that the headline is shown as @ghfghj;jpa tpLjiyg; gj;jpuk;@/ It is is a partition release deed relating to specific immovable properties in S.Nos.633 and 636. There is no proper stamp duty paid. The document requires registration under the Registration Act. The learned trial Judge, after applying his mind to the relevant provisions of the Registration Act and Stamp Act and also taking into account the decisions reported in CDJ 2013 MHC 264 (K.Santhanam and others Vs. S.Samptah), 2011 (5) MLJ 15 (Ammamuthu Ammal (died) and others Vs. Devaraj and others), 2009 (1) CTC 628 (Manoharan Vs. Rangabashyam and four others, 2008 (6) CTC 43 (Radha Ammal Vs. Manthi Reddiar) and 2001 (3) SCC 1 (Shantilal Panchal Vs. State of Gujarat), came to the correct conclusion that the alleged document produced on the side of the revision petitioners/defendants could not be marked according to law. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned trial Judge and the impugned order does not warrant any interference by this Court.
7. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed and the same is dismissed. No costs. The Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
21-12-2015 Index: Yes/no Internet: Yes/no cs Copy to The Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.
G.CHOCKALINGAM,J cs Order in C.R.P.(PD).No.2071 of 2013 21-12-2015