Madras High Court
Karuppannan vs Thavasiappan on 2 August, 2006
Author: S.Rajeswaran
Bench: S.Rajeswaran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 02/08/2006
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE S.RAJESWARAN
C.R.P. PD No.245 of 2005
Karuppannan .. Petitioner
-Vs-
1.Thavasiappan
2.President
Gobichettipalayam Co.operative
Society Limited
No.AA 3260
Gobichettipalayam
Erode District
.. Respondent
Revision Petition filed against the order dated 28.1.2005, made in
O.S.No.122/2004, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Gobichettipalayam.
!For Petitioner : M/s.R.T.Doraisamy
^For Respondents : M/s.T.Murugamanickam
:ORDER
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.
2. The plaintiff is the revision petitioner.
3. 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 fo rged 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.
4. 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 shoul t 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 unregi stered. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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 stampe d 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:-
"6. 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 under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act or for want of registration a s contemplated under Section 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 coul d 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.
7. 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 admitt y the trial Court, as repeatedly held in:
(i) Krishnaswami Naidu v. Secretary of State, AIR 1953 Mad.
15 (DB); (ii) Kovilpatti Sri Dhandayuthapani Trust v. Tilakaraj 1993 (1) MLJ 552; (iii) Kousalya Ammal v. Valliammai Ammal 1997 (2) CTC 517; 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 others v. Shanti Bibi and others, 2001 (1) L.W 466 that admissibility of documents for collateral purpose is permissible in law."
6. 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 as ece of evidence. In support of his submission, he relied on the judgment reported in 2006 (I) TNLJ (Civil) 226 (N.Karuppan vs. Periyapandi and another).
7. 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.
8. 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 no ly 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 meri ts of admissibility of the document irrespective of the fact whether the document is registered or unregistered document is also admissible for collateral purpose.
9. 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 th ial court dated 28.1.2005
10. 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.
11. 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.
sks To The District Munsif, Gobichettipalayam.