Madras High Court
Muruganandam vs Muniyandi(Died) on 26 February, 2021
CRP.PD.No.2828 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.02.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRP.PD.No.2828 of 2015 and
MP.No.1 of 2015
Muruganandam ..Petitioner
Vs.
1.Muniyandi(died)
2.Anbarasan
3.Ramesh
4.Prakash
5.Nithya
(RR2 to 5 brought on record as LR's
of the deceased sole respondent viz, Muniyandi
vide court order dated 10.02.2021 made in
CMP.No.7915 & 7916 of 2019 in
CRP.No.2828 of 2015) ..Respondents
PRAYER:
The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated
21.04.2015 passed in IA.No.1397 of 2014 in OS.No.78 of 2012 on the
file of the District Munsif Court, Madurantakam.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Govi Ganesan
For Respondents
R1 : died (steps taken)
For R2 to 5 : Mr.Y.Bhuvanesh Kumar
1/6
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP.PD.No.2828 of 2015
ORDER
This civil revision petition is filed against the fair and
decretal order dated 21.04.2015 passed in IA.No.1397 of 2014 in
OS.No.78 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Madurantakam
thereby dismissing the petition to receive the document dated
01.01.2000.
2. The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondent is the
defendant. The petitioner filed suit for specific performance on the
strength of the document dated 01.01.2000. At the time of filing plaint,
the petitioner annexed xerox copy of the document dated 01.01.2000.
Thereafter the petitioner found original document and filed petition to
receive the same. Admittedly, the said document is unstamped and
unregistered one. As per Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, it cannot be
marked as evidence even for collateral purpose. The learned counsel for
the petitioner relied upon the judgment in the case of Chellammal Vs.
Meenakshi reported in (2002) 3 CTC 739 , wherein it is held as
follows:
13. In the present case, an argument is raised that the
instrument is not actually an agreement of sale as envisaged
in the Schedule to the Stamp Act (subject to amendment
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP.PD.No.2828 of 2015
made by the State of Andhra Pradesh) but is is only a deed of
compromise entered into by two disputing persons. We
refrain from expressing any opinion on the said pleas as it is
open to the parties to raise their contentions regarding the
nature of the document before the trial Court. In the present
case, the trial Court should have asked the appellant, if it
finds that the instrument is insufficiently stamped, as to
whether he would remit the deficient portion of the stamp
duty together with a penalty amounting to ten times the
deficiency. If the appellant agrees to remit the said amount
the Court has to proceed with the trial after admitting the
document in evidence. In the meanwhile, the Court has to
forward a copy of the document to the Collector for the
purpose of adjudicating on the question of deficiency of the
stamp duty as provided in Section 40(1)(b) of the Act. Only if
the appellant is unwilling to remit the amount, the Court is to
forward the original of the document itself to the Collector
for the purpose of adjudicating on the question of deficiency
of the stamp duty. The penalty of ten times indicated therein
is the upper limit and the Collector shall take into account all
factors concerned in deciding as to what should be the proper
amount of penalty to be imposed.
14. In as much as none of the above proceedings had
been adopted by any of the authorities including High Court,
we set aside the impugned orders. We direct the Munsif to
consider first whether the document is insufficiently stamped
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP.PD.No.2828 of 2015
and if he funds that question in the affirmative, he has to
adopt the next step indicated above."
3. It is well settled in law that when a document is
tendered in evidence by either party and objection is raised against the
same on the ground that the document is not duly stamped under Section
35 of the Indian Evidence Act or for want of registration as contemplated
under Section 17 read with 49 of Registration Act, 1908, it is obligatory on
the part of the Court to apply its mind to the objections raised and to
decide the objection in accordance with law. In other words, no document
could be admitted on its face value irrespective of the fact whether it is
duly stamped or otherwise; nor it could be rejected as inadmissible for
the same reason or otherwise for want of registration automatically.
Therefore, the above judgment cited by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is not helpful to the case on hand.
4. In the case on hand, the document which is sought to
be marked created in unstamped paper and also unregistered one. Further
the document entered between the parties in respect of the possession of
the suit schedule property. Therefore, it cannot be marked even for
collateral purpose. Therefore, the court below rightly dismissed the
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP.PD.No.2828 of 2015
petition and this Court finds no irregularity or infirmity in the order passed
by the court below.
5. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No order as to
costs.
26.02.2021
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
lok
To
The District Munsif Court,
Madurantakam.
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP.PD.No.2828 of 2015
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
lok
CRP.PD.No.2828 of 2015
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP.PD.No.2828 of 2015
26.02.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
