IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09.07.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.MOHAN RAM C.R.P. No.1508 of 2009 and M.P.Nos. 1 of 2009 and 1 of 2010 1. V. Mohan 2. V. Sudarsanam 3. V. Rangasamy .. Petitioners(Defendants) Versus V. Haridass .. Respondent(Petitioner) The Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the order dated 23.12.2008 made in I.A.No.547 of 2008 in O.S.No.17 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam. For Petitioners : Mr. T.R.Rajaraman For Respondent : Mr. J.Ramakrishnan ORDER The defendants in O.S.No.17 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam are the petitioners herein. The plaintiff has filed the said suit for declaration of title and for permanent injunction and other reliefs in respect of the suit properties. Pending suit, the respondent filed a petition under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC to condone the delay in filing several documents, numbering about 20, of which Document No.1 is Koorchit dated 23.05.1993. The said petition was opposed by the petitioners herein contending that the koorchit dated 23.05.1993 is not a list of properties, but it is a partition deed and the parties to the said deed purported to claim title to the properties said to have been allotted under the deed and the said document is neither stamped nor registered and hence the same cannot be received in evidence as per Section 35 of Stamp Act. On consideration of rival contentions, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ court below allowed the petition by observing that the document, which was likely to be produced though unstamped, is admissible at the stage and it can be marked also for collateral purpose. The question of validity would be considered and decided at the stage of the judgment. Being aggrieved by that, the above revision has been filed. 2. Heard both. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Koorchit is admittedly unstamped and unregistered, under which a partition is claimed to have taken place and only based on the said koorchit, the plaintiff claims right to the suit properties. When a document is unstamped, it is liable to be impounded by the Court and unless stamp duty and penalty is paid thereon, it cannot be looked into for any purpose, even for collateral purposes. Therefore, according to the counsel, the order of the court below is liable to be set aside. In support of the said contention, learned counsel relied upon the decision reported in 2008 (2) CTC 11 (Thailammai and others ..v.s.. Karuppanan and others). In the said decision, it has been laid down as follows:- " It is the duty of the Trial Court to see as to whether the document is a properly stamped one or not. Ex facie and prima facie, it is clear that the said Ex.B5 is an invalid, unstamped and unregistered document attracted proper stamp duty and registration in view of it envisaging relinquishment of the first plaintiff's right over the immovable property worth more than Rs.100/-. It is trite proposition of law that any immovable property worth more than Rs.100/- should be stamped properly and registered; even for relying on collateral purposes, it should be properly a stamped one. As otherwise, stamp duty and penal duty should be collected and then only, it could be marked and relied on for collateral purposes." He also relied upon the decision reported in 2010 (3) CTC 873 (D.Sivagnanam ..vs.. Thirugnanaprakasham), wherein it has been laid down that unstamped and unregistered documents are not admissible in evidence and cannot be looked even for collateral purpose. 4. Countering the said submissions, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent is willing to pay the stamp duty and the penalty that has to be paid on the koorchit and once if the stamp duty and penalty is paid, the petitioners cannot have any objection for marking the said document. Learned counsel relied upon the decision reported in 2010 (1) CTC 27 (Kalaivani @ Devasena ..vs.. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ J. Ramu). In the said decision, it has been held that though the document is unregistered and unstamped, it can be looked into for collateral purpose, provided the deficit stamp duty along with penalty is paid upto date. In another decision reported in 2009 (5) CTC 822 (P.Narayanan ..vs.. Kasi), a similar view has been taken. In the decision reported in 2009 (2) SCC 532 (Avinash Kumar Chauhan .. vs.. Vijay Krishna Mishra), in paragraph 22, it has been laid down as under :- "22. We have noticed hereto before that Section 33 of the Act casts a statutory obligation on all the authorities to impound a document. The court being an authority to receive a document in evidence is bound to give effect thereto. The unregistered deed of sale was an instrument which required payment of the stamp duty applicable to a deed of conveyance. Adequate stamp duty admittedly was not paid. The court, therefore, was empowered to pass an order in terms of Section 35 of the Act. 5. I have considered the said submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 6. Admittedly, the koorchit is in the nature of a partition deed and as separate shares have been allotted to the parties to the document and as such it is compulsorily registrable under the Registration Act. Admittedly, the said document has not been stamped and registered and therefore as per the decision relied upon by both sides, the said documents cannot be looked into for any purpose including collateral purpose. But as aforesaid, once the stamp duty and penalty is paid, then the said document can be looked into for collateral purpose. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the respondent is willing to pay the stamp duty and penalty that is payable on the koorchit and therefore, once the stamp duty and penalty is paid, the bar in looking into those documents for collateral purpose is lifted. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the document cannot be looked into to ascertain the shares allotted to the parties to the document and for deciding the question of possession. It is made clear that the koorchit cannot be looked into for ascertaining the shares that have been allotted to the respective parties. But, it can be looked into for the only purpose as to whether there was division in status. 7. For the said reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with the following direction :- The respondent is directed to pay stamp duty and penalty payable on the koorchit dated 23.05.1993 and once stamp duty and penalty is paid, the document can be looked into for collateral purpose as https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ stated above. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar mra To The Additional Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam 1 cc To Mr.J.Ramakrishnan, Advocate, SR.49163 1 cc To Mr.T.R.Rajaram, Advocate, SR.48529 C.R.P. No.1508 of 2009 and M.P.Nos. 1 of 2009 and 1 of 2010 MBS(CO) sra 28/07/2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/