JAYAM Vs. SUGUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is fourth defendant in a suit filed by the first and second respondents for partition and separate possession of their 1/4th share in the suit "C" Schedule properties by metes and bounds and also for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their joint possession and enjoyment. THE petitioner filed written statement, necessary issues were framed, the case was taken up for trial and the plaintif's witnesses were also examined. At the stage of examination of this petitioner, he filed an application in I.A.No,2098 of 2007 under Order 8, Rule 3A(3) and Section 151 of C.P.C to condone the delay in producing documents filed along with the petition. He has enumerated the particulars of documents, in which, the eighth document is Koorchit, which is unregistered and unstamped. In the affidavit, he has also alleged that the second respondent has given to him two power of attorney deeds dated 25.05.1994 and 28.06.1994, empowering him to sell certain properties and accordingly he sold them. Hence the documents may be received in evidence.

(2.) IN the Counter filed by the 3rd defendant, it is stated that the petitioner cannot mark the documents which are in variance with the pleadings. The petitioner has cleverly chosen not to divulge anything about the 8th document he intends to mark in his affidavit, which misleads the Court. It is settled law that an unregistered document, being a compulsorily registrable one under Section 17(i)(b) of INdian Registration Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") cannot be received as evidence at all under Section 49 of the Act. Since the said proposed eighth document severs the relationship of the parties therein and clothes them with distinct and separate title in respect of the property mentioned therein and thereby operates to create title in the parties therein viz, the principals of the petitioners, they cannot be admitted and the application comes at a very belated stage. There is no sustainable reason for the delay in filing the worthyless documents. Hence the petition has to be dismissed.

(3.) PER contra, learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Siva Shanmugam would submit that by virtue of the Koorchit itself, the parties to it, divided the properties, which purports to create their right and interest in the properties, it is compulsorily registrable and by means of non-registration, no question of payment of stamp duty penalty would arise and it is well settled that such document could not be relied upon for any purpose.