SUNDARAMBAL Vs. PANNEERSELVAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the plaintiffs against the order dated 11.06.2007 made in I.A.No.483 of 2007 in O.S.400 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Tindivanam dismissing the interim application filed by the plaintiff to reject Exs.B.5 to 13 Lease Deeds entered into between the parties for indefinite period, on the ground that correct stamp duty and penalty were not paid and they are unregistered and not admissible in evidence.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case put forth by the respective parties before the trial Court are as follows:- (a) According to the plaintiff, Exs.B5 to B13 are Lease Deeds the lease was for residential purpose and not for agricultural purpose lease was for indefinite period the rental was on monthly basis thus requisite Stamp Duty i.e. annual rent for 10 years is to be paid the lease deeds are not admissible in evidence and in order to accept the same in evidence necessary Stamp Duty Penalty has to be paid and in the absence of registration and on account of insufficient stamp duty and non payment of stamp duty penalty, those documents are inadmissible in evidence. (b) According to the defendants the deeds were sufficiently stamped the lease was on monthly basis and therefore, those documents attract no stamp duty penalty there is no bar to admit those documents in evidence and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the trial Court has erred in dismissing the petition filed by the plaintiff which is against all cannons of law. She would further submit that the defendants have relied upon Exs.B.5 to 13 as Lease Deeds for the vacant site in order to prove the tenancy over the suit property and therefore, the stamps affixed on the said document are insufficient and no specific term of lease are found place in those lease deeds viz., Exs.B.5 to 13 and therefore, the lease would be for an indefinite period and in such circumstances, they require registration. Those lease deeds are inadmissible in evidence as per Section 49 of the Registration Act, as they are unregistered. THE trial Court had also not seen that the stamps were not affixed as per Section 35 of the Stamp Act and without venturing into the issue of the effect of non registration of the lease deeds, refused to reject Exs.B5 to 13 and thereby committed grave error.