RANGANATHA GIRAMANI Vs. VISALATCHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decretal order dated 5. 12. 2006 made in I. A. No: 276 of 2006 in O. S. No. 42 of 2001 by the learned District Munsif Court, Thirukalukundram dismissing the i. A. , filed by the plaintiff under Order 13 Rule 3 CPC for rejection of unregistered Partition Deed dated 21. 3. 1974 filed by the defendant No. 3 on the ground that the said document is inadmissible in evidence.

(2.) THE suit has been filed by the revision petitioner/plaintiff for declaration, partition and also for incidental reliefs as against the respondents/defendants. During trial, the third defendant had filed a document, namely attested photo copy of partition deed dated 21. 3. 1974 as evidence though which he is claiming right and title over the one forth share of suit A and B schedule mentioned properties. According to the plaintiff, the alleged partition deed dated 21. 3. 1974 is an unstamped written paper, not a registered document as required under Section 17 of the registration Act and it is inadmissible under Section 49 of the Registration act. THErefore the said document cannot be received in evidence. In fact the said document is a forged document wherein the plaintiff has not put his signature and therefore it does not bind on his right over his B Schedule property. Hence the said document has to be rejected as inadmissible to be received in evidence.

(3.) IN 2003 (3) MLJ 45 (Balakrishnan & another Vs. Chandrasekharan), this court held that it is settled law that if the family arrangement is reduced to writing and it purports to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any right, title or interest of any immovable property, it must be properly stamped and duly registered as per INdian Stamps Act and indian Registration Act. But in the said decision it has been observed that if the family arrangement is stamped, but not registered, it can be looked into for collateral purposes.