KALIMUTHU PILLAI Vs. VELUSAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision is filed by the second defendant in the suit against the order passed in I.A.No.761 of 1995 in O.S.No.261 of 1993on the file of the District Munsif, Manamadurai. The suit was filed for declaration of title and possession. In the suit, I.A.No.761 of 1995 was filed under 0.13, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for admitting two release deeds, dated 31.12.1980 as documents. The first defendant is the maternal uncle of the plaintiff. The second defendant is the son of the first defendant. The third defendant is the daughter of the second defendant. The above said two documents were neither stamped under the Stamp Act nor registered under the Registration Act, even though the documents transfer right in immovable properties. The trial Court, on hearing both the parties, held that these two documents along with other documents are admissible in evidence for the purpose of proving collateral aspects after the stamp duties were paid with penalties. It is against that order, the present civil revision petition has been preferred by the second defendant.

(2.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein the abovesaid two documents marked as Exs.A-4 and A-7 were not stamped and they were also not registered, and therefore they cannot be looked into. It is the case of the petitioner that even though when a document is properly stamped, but not registered, it can be admissible for the purpose of proving collateral incidence. ACCORDING to the learned counsel, the trial Court has not looked into Secs.17 and 49 of the Registration Act before ordering the admissibility of these documents.

(3.) THE fact remains that Exs.A-4 and A-7 are the documents, releasing certain rights in certain immovable properties. THE subject matter in those release deeds is not the subject matter in the suit. According to the first respondent herein, he wanted to file these documents to show the collateral aspect, viz., that the first defendant, who is his maternal uncle, was looking after his properties and at a later stage, he used to reconvey the same under the release deeds. THE suit is not based upon these two documents. A perusal of the two release deeds stated above would go to show that there are endorsements to show that stamp duties were paid and penalties were also paid. If the stamp duties were paid and those documents were not registered it cannot to be said that those documents cannot be admitted to prove collateral aspects.