DURAICHAMY AND ORS. Vs. MAYILERI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.35/2012 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Ambasamuthiram and in the suit, the plaintiffs sought for permanent injunction, etc. During pendency of the suit, the 1st plaintiff filed an application in I.A.No.1025 of 2014, seeking permission for remittance of sufficient stamp duty and the said application was dismissed, on the ground that there is no necessity to pay the stamp duty. Aggrieved by such finding, the revision petitioners/plaintiffs are before this Court.

(2.) It is the case of the revision petitioners that they had filed the suit for permanent injunction and when the case was posted for marking documents, the plaintiffs came to know that an important unregistered document was marked on their side and the same is a vital document. Since it was an unregistered document, there is a possibility of the Trial Court in not allowing the plaintiffs to mark it and in that event, they would not be in a position to prove their case. It is the further case of the petitioners that the Trial Court, on the basis of the submission made on the side of the respondent herein that the document is inadmissible in evidence, had held that no question of payment of stamp duty arose for such document, which is highly arbitrary and in violation of the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

(3.) The revision petitioners state that the unregistered document was executed only to indicate the omitted part of the sale deed regarding standing trees on the property and therefore, the impugned sale deed is admissible in evidence. However, the Trial Court, without considering all these factual matrix involved in the case, has simply rejected the plea of the petitioners. Hence, it is prayed that the order of the Trial Court is liable to be set aside.