Gajendiran vs V.Seetharaman
2021 Latest Caselaw 4151 Mad

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 4151 Mad
Judgement Date : 18 February, 2021

Madras High Court

Gajendiran vs V.Seetharaman on 18 February, 2021

                                                                             C.R.P.(P.D).No.1610 of 2016

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED : 18.02.2021

                                                      CORAM:

                              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                              C.R.P.(P.D).No.1610 of 2016
                                              and C.M.P.No.8743 of 2016

                     Gajendiran                                                    ...Petitioner
                                                          Vs

                     1.V.Seetharaman
                     2.Punitha
                     3.Malathi
                     4.The Sub-Registrar
                     Dusi Sub Registration Office
                     Dusi
                     Cheyyar Taluk.                                                ...Respondents

                     Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
                     of India to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.153 of 2016 in O.S.No.25 of
                     2012 on 05.03.2016 by the Additional District Munsif, Cheyyar,
                     Tiruvannamalai District.


                                           For Petitioner      : Mr.K.S.Kumar
                                           For Respondents     : No appearence for R1
                                                                 R2 to R4 given up




                     1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                                 C.R.P.(P.D).No.1610 of 2016

                                                          ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition is directed as against the fair and

decretal order passed on 05.03.2016 in I.A.No.153 of 2016 in O.S.No.25 of

2012 by the Additional District Munsif, Cheyyar, Tiruvannamalai District,

thereby allowed the petition to order for Stamp Duty and penalty in respect

of unregistered sale deed and permit to mark it as exhibit.

2.The 1st respondent filed a suit for declaration declaring that the

sale deed executed by the 1st and 2nd defendant in favour of the 3rd

defendant dated 04.03.2011, vide document No.562 of 2011 as null and void

and also for mandatory injunction, directing the 1st and 2nd defendant to

herein dated 30.09.2006, in respect of the suit schedule property.

Admittedly, the sale deed dated 30.09.2006 is unstamped and unregistered

one. While pending the suit, the 1st respondent filed a petition to impound

the same for paying Stamp Duty as well as the penalty to mark the same as

one of the exhibit. The petitioner is the 3rd defendant in the suit filed by the

1st respondent herein and he is the purchaser of the suit property from the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(P.D).No.1610 of 2016

1st and 2nd defendants in the suit. The Court below allowed the petition on

the ground that there is no bar to mark the unregistered document, after

paying necessary Stamp Duty and penalty and the same can be used for

collateral purpose. Further observed that mere marking of the document

will not make it admission of evidence. In this regard, the learned counsel

for the petitioner rely upon the following Judgments:

(i)in the case of Amertham Vs. Thannace, reported in 2020 (4)

CTC 395 and relevant portion is given below:-

"Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), Section 49 - Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), Section 35 - Unstamped unregistered Sale Deed - Whether admissible in evidence for collateral purpose in Suit for declaration of title - Plaintiff claimed adverse possession and marked unstamped unregistered Sale Deed to prove possession - No specific plea of Adverse Possession in Plaint - Purpose of marking said Sale Deed is only to prove Plaintiff's title as per pleadings -

Held, document cannot be looked into for any collateral purpose as it is neither stamped nor registered - Unregistered Sale Deed cannot be admitted in evidence as Plaintiff claims title and Suit itself is for

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(P.D).No.1610 of 2016

Declaration of Title based on unregistered Sale Deed - Collateral transaction must be independent and divisible from transaction, which requires registration - Collateral transaction should be one, which does not create or extinguish title or interest in immovable property - Trial Court right in holding that document is inadmissible in evidence for want of Stamp Duty and Registration - Civil Revision Petition is dismissed."

(ii) in the case of Dhananjezhiyan and another Vs. Kuppu and

others reported in 2020 (5) CTC 812. The head notes are given below:-

"Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), Sections 17 & 49 - Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), Section 35 - Unregistered and Unstamped document - Plaintiffs seeking Declaratory relief on basis of unregistered and unstamped document - Unstamped and unregistered document is inadmissible in evidence - It cannot be relied upon in Court proceedings, when such document becomes basis of claim of person tracing his/her title - Lower Courts rightly rejected said document - Second Appeal dismissed."

(iii) in the case of Chandra Sundararaj and other

Vs.C.M.Dhinakaran @ Suresh and others reported in 2019 (6) CTC 517.

Head notes are here:-

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(P.D).No.1610 of 2016

"Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), Section 17 - Document purporting to be Family Arrangement to be registered, if it effects relinquishment of rights over properties - Such document should be properly stamped and registered, and unregistered document not admissible in evidence."

3.This Court repeatedly held, that the document cannot be looked

into for any collateral purpose as it is neither stamped nor registered. The

unregistered sale deed cannot be admitted in evidence as plaintiffs claims

title and suit for declaration of title based on the unregistered sale deed.

Collateral transaction must be independent and it requires registration.

Further held that the unstamped and unregistered document is inadmissible

in evidence.

4.In the case on hand, according to the 1st respondent herein, the

respondents 2 and 3 executed sale deed dated 30.09.2006 in favour of him

and thereafter failed to register the same. Therefore, the 1st respondent filed

a suit for mandatory injunction directing the 2nd and 3rd respondent to

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(P.D).No.1610 of 2016