THILAGAVATHY Vs. MOHAMMED RABEEK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit. THE suit has been filed for redemption of mortgaged property. Pending the suit, the defendant filed I.A.No:159 of 2005 to receive 11 additional documents. THE petitioner/plaintiff opposed the said petition contending that there is no reason adduced as to why such documents have not been filed along with the suit, the first document dated 12.5.1993 intended to be received as an additional document is a concocted document prepared for the purpose of the case, it has not been stamped properly as stipulated under Article 40(a) of the Indian Stamps Act, it has not been registered as required under Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act.

(2.) LEARNED District Munsif, Srikali, on consideration of the averments and the respective submissions made by the counsel appeared on either side partly allowed the Interlocutory Application holding that the document dated 12.5.1993 could be taken into consideration only for the purpose of receipt of payment by the defendant under the said document and no other right can be claimed by the said document. Aggrieved over the same, the plaintiff has preferred this revision.

(3.) IN 2001 (1) CTC 112 (AC. Lakshmipathy & Anr. V. A.M. Chakrapani Reddiar and ors, a Division Bench of this Court held that unstamped documents if required to be stamped but not so stamped cannot be looked into for any purpose including collateral purpose.