RADHAKRISHNAN Vs. DURAINATHAN PALANISAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS against the dismissal of the I. A. No:43 of 2005 field by the revision petitioners, defendant in the suit to reject Ex. A. 1 Partition deed, by the learned District Munsif, Dharapuram, this revision has been preferred.

(2.) ACCORDING to the defendants when the affidavit was filed by the plaintiff to file the said document, the counsel for the defendants made an endorsement that he takes notice of the same. But at the time of filing of the said document in the court the Junior Counsel due to oversight has not made any objection and therefore the same has been marked. Since it is an unregistered and unstamped document, the same cannot be looked into or marked for evidentiary purpose. Thus Ex. A. 1 partition deed suffers for non compliance of Section 17 of the Indian Stamps Act as well as Section 35 of the Indian Registration Act.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the revision petitioners contended that Ex. A. 1, which is unstamped and unregistered is inadmissible in evidence both under Indian Stamps Act and Registration Act. Further, the plaintiff having got full knowledge of the defendants'serious objections in admitting and marking the said document as Exhibit, adopted an indirect device and marked it as Ex. A. 1 through his proof affidavit by misleading the court. LEARNED counsel further contended that the lower court before admitting the said document has to find out whether the document purported to be admitted and marked as exhibit in evidence is required to be stamped and registered and then to find out whether the plaintiff has paid the stamp duty and penalty to take the same even for collateral purpose.