Madras High Court
P. Palani vs P. Saminatha Padayachi And Ors. on 6 September, 2001
Equivalent citations: (2001)3MLJ742
Author: P. Sathasivam
Bench: P. Sathasivam
ORDER P. Sathasivam, J.
1. The civil revision petition is filed against the order of the learned District Munsif, Cuddalore dated 13.2.2001 made in O.S.No. 454 of 1998.
2. The petitioner/plaintiff filed a civil suit in O.S.No. 454 of 1998 before the District Munsif Court, Cuddalore against the respondents herein/ defendants for declaring his right to easement to let out water for a width of 2 feet beyond the line CF in the plaint plan and for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the wall constructed by them 2 1/2" away of the western side of CP wall to a height of 15 feet.
3. The first defendant filed a written statement disputing various averments made by the plaintiff.
4. During the trial, when P.W.1 was examined on the side of the plaintiff, a partition arrangement dated 21.6.1982 was sought to be marked. The said move was objected by the defendants on the ground that it is an unregistered document and the same cannot be marked. However, it is contended on the side of the plaintiff that though it is an unregistered document, the same can be marked for a collateral purpose. The learned District Munsif, after holding that by the said partition arrangement, the plaintiff wants to establish his right, accordingly the document has to be registered under Sections 17 and 35 of the Registration Act and in the absence of such registration, the partition arrangement dated 21.6.1982 cannot be marked. Against the said order, the plaintiff has preferred the present revision.
5. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as for the respondents.
6. It is the case of the plaintiff that, on 21.6.1982 the plaintiff and the first defendant have entered into a partition arrangement and thereunder the plaintiff was allotted plaint "B" schedule. The said "B" schedule refers to "A B G H" in the plaint plan. It is also stated that the first defendant was allotted plaint "A" schedule refers to "G C P Q M" in the plaint plan. The portion marked as "X" in the plaint plan as a "Well" and it was kept in common between the plaintiff and the first defendant in "C" schedule to the partition arrangement. It is also stated that, on 21.6.1992, the plaintiff and the first defendant have entered into an agreement, whereunder it has been agreed that the plaintiff has got a right to enjoy the property without being disturbed by the others. It is also clear that the plaintiff is seeking the relief of declaration, namely his right of easement to let out the water for a width of 20ft., beyond the line "C P" in the plaint plan.
7. The various averments made in the plaint, written statement a well as the relief prayed for in the suit, it is clear that the plaintiff is claiming easementary right and for the said purpose he has filed the present suit. In such a circumstance, though the partition agreement dated 21.6.1982 is an unregistered one, can be considered and marked only for collateral purpose as claimed by the plaintiff. In this regard, it is useful to refer the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of A.C. Lakshmipathy and Anr. v. A.M. Chakrapani Reddiar and Ors. . After referring the relevant provisions from the Indian Registration Act and Indian Stamp Act as well as the earlier decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court, the Division Bench has summed up the legal position. Among IX clauses, clause VIII is relevant.
VIII. Whether the purpose is a collateral purpose, it is a question of fact depending upon facts and circumstances of each case. A person cannot claim a right or title, to a property under the said document, which is being looked into only for collateral purposes.
8. Here, In our case, the plaintiff sought to mark the partition arrangement for a collateral purpose for proving the mode of enjoyment of the property. Further, the perusal of the said document shows that, no rights were created under the document. In such a circumstance, as per Clause VIII of the Division Bench decision cited supra, the document in question can be considered for a collateral purpose. Apart from this, it is also brought to my notice that the partition arrangement is stamped, but not registered. Here again, clause VII of the Division Bench decision says, If the partition arrangement is stamped but not registered, it can be looked into for collateral purpose.
Inasmuch as the partition arrangement is stamped and not registered, as per the said clause, it can be looked into for collateral purpose. The same view has been expressed in the case of K. Pattabiraman v. K. Banumathi and Ors. (P. Sathasivam, J.,).
9. In the light of what is stated above, the impugned order of the learned Principal District Munsif, Cuddalore dated 13.2.2001 made in O.S.No. 454 of 1998 is set aside and the civil revision petition is allowed. No costs. The learned District Munsif is directed to permit the plaintiff to mark the partition arrangement dated 21.6.1982, only for a collateral purpose i.e., for proving the mode of enjoyment of the suit property and dispose of the suit expeditiously.
10. In view of the disposal of the main revision, connected C.M.P. is closed.