RADHA AMMAL Vs. MANTHI REDDIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petition is directed against the petition for rejection of documents which had been tendered in evidence at the time of trial by the defendants. THE documents are photocopies of a promissory note alleged to have been executed by the first defendant who is dead and a -mortgage receipt-. THE objection raised by the plaintiff/respondent before the court below was that the originals are not with the plaintiff as falsely alleged and the photocopies could not have been received in evidence. THE Court below accepted the contention of the respondent and allowed the petition for rejecting this documents.

(2.) THE relevance of the documents which were sought to be introduced in evidence could be examined by the reference to the contentions raised between the parties. THE suit is for specific performance which is resisted by the defendant by stating that it is a fabricated document. THE contention of the defendants is to the effect that the first defendant and her sons had borrowed some money from the plaintiff's deceased father on the basis of promissory note. Towards the interest payable on the promissory note, the property belonging to the defendants were handed over possession to the plaintiff's father and in evidence of the same, a mortgage receipt was obtained. THE document was unregistered. THE plaintiff's father had also obtained the thumb impression of the deceased first defendant and on some occasion when the defendants were making demands for return of the property, the document had been pressed into service by fabricating an agreement in their favour.

(3.) COUNSEL for the respondent refers to be several decisions of the Supreme Court which are to the effect that the unregistered and unstamped documents could not have been received in the evidence by the court below and there are no additional reasons why the copies of documents which were tendered in evidence could not be received. COUNSEL refers to the decision in A.C.Lakshmipathy And Another Vs. A.M.Chakrapani Reddiar And Another Reported In (2001) 1 Mlj Page 1 where the Division Bench had held that a unstamped unregistered partition deed cannot be received in evidence for any purpose. An unstamped document which is objected to at the time of marking the document, cannot be received in any evidence at all as a matter for which there is a specific bar under Section 35 of the Stamp Act. The point was being made by the Division Bench at the final hearing of the appeal after it had gone through the entire course of trial. Here, in this case, the admissibility of the documents is a point in issue which, as per the decision of the Supreme Court will take at the time of argument. There is no ground for defying the judgment and throw out of reckoning the document for consideration at the time of argument.