LAWS(MAD)-2010-7-163

V MOHAN Vs. V HARIDASS

Decided On July 09, 2010
V.MOHAN Appellant
V/S
V.HARIDASS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants in O.S.No.17 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam are the petitioners herein. The plaintiff has filed the said suit for declaration of title and for permanent injunction and other reliefs in respect of the suit properties. Pending suit, the respondent filed a petition under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC to condone the delay in filing several documents, numbering about 20, of which Document No.1 is Koorchit dated 23.05.1993. The said petition was opposed by the petitioners herein contending that the koorchit dated 23.05.1993 is not a list of properties, but it is a partition deed and the parties to the said deed purported to claim title to the properties said to have been allotted under the deed and the said document is neither stamped nor registered and hence the same cannot be received in evidence as per Section 35 of Stamp Act. On consideration of rival contentions, the court below allowed the petition by observing that the document, which was likely to be produced though unstamped, is admissible at the stage and it can be marked also for collateral purpose. The question of validity would be considered and decided at the stage of the judgment. Being aggrieved by that, the above revision has been filed.

(2.) Heard both.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Koorchit is admittedly unstamped and unregistered, under which a partition is claimed to have taken place and only based on the said koorchit, the plaintiff claims right to the suit properties. When a document is unstamped, it is liable to be impounded by the Court and unless stamp duty and penalty is paid thereon, it cannot be looked into for any purpose, even for collateral purposes. Therefore, according to the counsel, the order of the court below is liable to be set aside. In support of the said contention, learned counsel relied upon the decision reported in 2008 (2) CTC 11 (Thailammai and others ..v.s.. Karuppanan and others). In the said decision, it has been laid down as follows:-