PERIYASAMY Vs. SELVAMBAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition has been filed against the fair and decretal order, dated 21.10.2009, made in I.A.No1465 of 2009, in O.S.No.108 of 2004, on the file of the Second Additional Principal District Munsif Court, Kallakurichi, Villupuram District.

(2.) IT has been stated that the suit, in O.S.No.108 of 2004, has been filed by the plaintiff, who is the first respondent in the present civil revision petition. The suit had been filed by the first respondent praying for partition and separate possession of the first respondent-s share of the suit schedule property. The first defendant in the said suit, who is the petitioner in the present civil revision petition, had filed an interlocutory application, in I.A.No.1465 of 2009, for marking the document, dated 6.9.1993, which is a release deed, according to which the first respondent is said to have released her share of the family property, on its being validated. The learned second Additional Principal District Munsif, Kallakurichi, had dismissed the interlocutory application, in I.A.No.1465 of 2009, on the ground that the value of the document sought to be marked by the petitioner could not be assessed. Further, the document does not contain the schedule of the property concerned. IT had also been stated that the relief of the petitioner cannot be granted for the reason that the document, dated 11.4.1977, mentioned in the released deed, dated 6.9.1993, could not be produced by the petitioner.

(3.) IT had also been stated that since the release deed is relating to the alleged release of the first respondent-s right in the suit schedule property, the said document, dated 6.9.1993, should have been a registered document. As it has been claimed by the petitioner that the first respondent had relinquished her rights in the family property, by way of the release deed, dated 6.9.1993, the said document should have been properly stamped and registered. The learned counsel had also submitted that, as per the averments made by the petitioner, in the written statement filed by him in the suit, in O.S.No.108 of 2004, it is clear that the main purpose for which he was wanting to mark the release deed, dated 6.9.1993, is to show that the plaintiff had released her share of the family property, and there is no collateral purpose for which the document is sought to be marked. The learned counsel had also pointed out that, as per ground No.4 of the civil revision petition, the document in question relates to a family arrangement. As per the decision, reported in Lakshmipathy,A.C. V A.M.Chakrapani Reddiar (2001 (I) CTC 112,) a family arrangement, which is not stamped and not registered, cannot be looked into for any purpose, in view of the specific bar in Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The learned counsel had also submitted that no reason has been shown by the petitioner for the long delay in attempting to mark the document in question.