CHELLAMMAL Vs. MEENAKSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner is the second defendant in o. S. No. 39 of 2000 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court , Sivagangai, laid by the respondent/plaintiff for declaration of title of the respondent/plaintiff over the suit property and for consequential permanent injunction. After the examination of plaintiff witnesses, the revision petitioner/second defendant, through D. W. 1 proposed to mark an unregistered release deed dated 18. 5. 1980 to substantiate his case and the same was objected by the respondent/plaintiff contending that the said unregistered release deed dated 18. 5. 1980 cannot be admitted as evidence as per Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act. Accepting the objection of the respondent/plaintiff the learned Principal District Munsif, sivagangai, by his order dated 7. 8. 2001 refused to admit the release deed dated 18. 5. 1980 even for collateral purpose. Hence, the above revision.

(2.) MR. V. Ayyadurai, learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance on the decision of this Court in Ayyavu and others v. Shanti bibi and others, 2000 (1) L. W 466 as well as the decision of the Apex Court in chilakuri Gangulappa v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Etc. & Anr. , 2001 (3)L. W. 1 13, contends that the said unregistered release deed dated 18. 5. 1980 is admissible in evidence.

(3.) 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 admitted by 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 Lakshminarayana Venugopalaswami Temple by its Executive officer, 1997 (3) LW 27. Following the said decision, it is held in Ayyavu and others v. Shanti Bibi and others, 2001 (1) LW 466 that admissibility of documents for collateral purpose is permissible in law.