EASWARI Vs. DURAISAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff is the revision petitioner. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and injunction. The plaintiff relied upon an unregistered sale deed dated 28.2.1998 to claim title to the suit property and during her evidence, the document was not permitted to be marked as it was unregistered and not duly stamped and therefore, she filed application in I.A. No. 302 of 2011 for impounding the document offering to pay stamp duty penalty and that application was dismissed and aggrieved by the same, this revision is filed.

(2.) The respondent was served and his name was also printed in the cause list, but, there was no appearance for the respondent. Therefore, the respondent was set ex parte.

(3.) Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the court below, without properly appreciating the provisions of the Stamp Act and the judgments reported in Kalaivani @ Devasena v. J. Ramu, 2010 1 CTC 27, K. Veerabadran & another v. K. Venugopal & 4 others, 2009 5 LW 465 and Thiruvengada Pillai v. Navaneethammal, 2008 2 MadLJ 1115, erred in dismissing the application and the court below ought to have impounded the document and sent the document to the Collector for payment of deficit stamp duty and the court below ought not to have rejected the application.