C.G. JAYALAKSHMI Vs. SMT MARIYAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COUNSEL for the sole respondent is also aggneved by the impugned order and submits that the writ petition be allowed. The petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Court below, wherein the documents sought to be marked by him was declined to be marked by the Court below, since the same was not property stamped. 'The agreement of sale dated 05.09.2005, sought to be relied upon by the plaintiff required to be marked as an exhibit. The document is not registered, Hence, t11. - trial. Court held that since the document is not registered, it cannot be looked into by any purpose and hence, it declined to mark as a document.

(2.) I am unable to accept the reasons of the trial Court. Proviso to Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act states that even though the documents has not been marked the same may be looked into for collateral purposes. Trial Court failed in holding that the documents cannot be marked for any purpose. To that extent the order of the Court below stands modified. Trial Court has a discretion to look into the said documents for collateral purposes under proviso to Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act. However, the trial Court has declined to impound the said document and to proceed further in the matter. The trial Court is duty bound to impound the document and thereafter Lo proceed further for recovery of insufficient stamp. Under these circumstances, the reasoning of the trial Court to decline impounding of the said document is bad in law.