INDIRANI Vs. SEETHARAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant, who failed before the I Additional district Munsif, Dindigul, in resisting I. A. No. 641 of 2004 in O. S. No. 973 of 2004, which was filed by the respondent/plaintiff, to mark certain documents, as exhibits, is the revision petitioner.

(2.) O. S. No. 973 of 2004 was filed by the respondent against the revision petitioner for specific performance, based upon a sale agreement. According to the respondent/plaintiff, as seen from the averments in the plaint, discharge of two this dated 20. 10. 2001 and 31. 10. 2001, also form part of sale consideration, in addition, those documents, evidence his possession also.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that admittedly, the documents, sought to be exhibited, are un-registered and un-stamped this (mortgage) and in this view, in the absence of payment of stamp duty and penalty as well as registration, they are inadmissible in evidence, since admitting those documents would offend the provisions of Section 35 of the Stamp Act as well as certain provisions of the registration Act.