1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:26.04.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN C.R.P(MD)No.746 of 2011 & M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 1.Panju 2.Rajasekar 3.Kannan 4.Pandi .. Petitioners/Petitioners/Defendants 2 to 5 -Vs- 1.Muniammal 2.Rajathi ..Respondents/Respondents/Plaintiffs PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair order and executable order dated 29.01.2011 passed in I.A.No.1596 of 2010 in O.S.No.404 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thirumangalam, Madurai District. For Petitioners :Mr.R.Aravindan For Respondents :Mr.Bau Rajendran ORDER The Defendants 2 to 5 are before this Court challenging the order passed in their application to re-open and recall and to receive the additional documents. 2.The respondents filed a suit for partition against the petitioners. When the matter was posted for judgment, the petitioners filed the above application. The trial Court after analysing the documents, found that the documents sought to be marked in effect is a release deed and further held that though it looks like a Will, the same requires registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act, and dismissed the application. The said document insufficiently stamped as per Indian Stamp Act and the same cannot be admissible as evidence. 3.Heard the parties. 4.It is seen that the suit is for partition. Though the said document is not pleaded in the written statement, the first defendant's mother executed the said declaration. The said document is required to be received as evidence and the findings could be given with regard to admissibility and relevancy in the final disposal of the cases. The document is required to be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 received subject to objections as to whether it is required to be registered or sufficient stamp duty is to be paid. The trial Court could decide if the document is insufficiently stamped, an opportunity should be given to the petitioners to pay the stamp duty. Even otherwise, as stated by the petitioners, the documents could be looked into for collateral purposes. 5.The observations of this Court is only for the purposes of deciding this Civil Revision Petition and the said observations will not have the binding effect on the trial Court for disposing of the suit. Therefore, the trial Court is directed to receive the additional document and DW.1 is directed to be recalled. 6.The learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that he is ready to cross-examine DW.1 on the very same day when the document is marked subject to objections. 7.Considering the fact that the suit is filed in the year 2005 and almost the trial is over, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the matter on or before 15.07.2011. 8.In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the orders passed by the trial Court are set aside in I.A.No.1594 to 1596. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The District Munsif Court, Thirumangalam, Madurai. +1cc to Mr.Babu Rajendran, Advocate Sr.No.15133 gsr ssk/08.06.2011 /3c-2p/- C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.746 of 2011 & M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/