M.Murugan vs T.S.Mani Nadar on 19 June, 2023
6. Radha Ammal (Died) Vs Manthi Reddiar reported in 2008 (4)
TNLJ 208 (Civil)
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.63 seconds)Documents citing
Radha Ammal (Died) vs Manthi Reddiar on 30 September, 2008
Mr.K.Santhanam vs Mr.S.Sampath on 30 November, 2012
3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the court below erred in allowing the application filed by the second defendant viz., the respondent herein on the misconception that the document was already marked and the respondent herein is entitled to apply to the court for payment of deposit of stamp duty and penalty and the document Ex.B20 has not been marked in evidence and it is not duly stamped and it is not registered and as per the provisions of section 35 of the Stamp Act, a document which is not duly stamped cannot be received in evidence and therefore, the court has no power to entertain such a petition permitting the party to pay the stamp duty penalty on the document which is not duly stamped and the court below also failed to appreciate the judgment of this court made in C.R.P.No.4325 of 2010 between the same parties wherein this court held that an unstamped document cannot be received even for collateral purpose and therefore, the court below erred in permitting the respondent to pay deficit stamp duty and penalty. He relied upon the judgment reported in CHILAKURI GANGULAPPA v. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MADANPALLE ((2001) 4 SCC 197 = (2001) 2 MLJ 33 SC), BIPIN SHANTILAL PANCHAL v. STATE OF GUJARAT ((2001) 3 SCC 1), A.C.LAKSHMIPATHY v. A.M.CHAKRAPANI REDDIAR (AIR 2001 MADRAS 135) and RADHA AMMAL v. MANTHI REDDIAR (2008 (6) CTC 43).
Balamurugan vs Lakshmiammal on 23 October, 2018
5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied on the
Judgment passed by this Court in the case of Radha Ammal (Died) and others v.
Manthi Reddiar reported in (2008) 8 MLJ 619, which reads as follows:
Karuppusamy vs Devaraj on 7 October, 2016
6. He also relied on one another decision in RADHA AMMAL (DIED) AND OTHERS v. MANTHI REDDIAR, wherein paragraph 8 reads as follows:
Ranganathan vs Jayamani on 21 December, 2015
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.
1