S VENKATACHALAMJAYAPRAKASH Vs. KAMALATHALVENKATACHALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When the petitioners in CRP.No.455 of 2017 had attempted to introduce an unregistered partition cum release deed dated 07.04.1978 in evidence, the first respondent herein/plaintiff had raised her objections through a memorandum, objecting to the marking of the unregistered document dated 07.04.1978 on the ground that the said instrument is impermissible to be admitted in evidence, in view of Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act r/w. Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The said objections were countered by the petitioners herein, stating that a family arrangement does not require registration and the insufficient stamp duty can be cured by payment of penalty and therefore insisted for having the said document marked. The objections raised by the first respondent/plaintiff was sustained through an order dated 20.01.2017, which is impugned in the CRP.No.455 of 2017.

(2.) Pending the present Civil Revision Petition, the defendants 2 and 3 filed an application in I.A.No.498 of 2018 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking for an expert opinion on the genuinity of the left thumb impression (LTI) in the release deed dated 07.04.1978, which came to be rejected by an order dated 18.04.2018, which is in challenge in CRP.No.2035 of 2018.

(3.) Since the issue involved in both the Civil Revision Petitions revolves around the validity and admissibility of the release deed dated 07.04.1978, both the civil revision petitions are disposed through a common order.