Madras High Court

D.Mani vs Narayanasamy Kounder on 5 January, 2021

                                                                           C.R.P.(P.D).No.3739 of 2015

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED : 05.01.2021

                                                      CORAM:

                              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                             C.R.P.(P.D).No.3739 of 2015
                                                and M.P.No.1 of 2015

                     1.D.Mani
                     2.M.Dinesh                                                  ...Petitioners
                                                         Vs
                     1.Narayanasamy Kounder
                     2.The Superintending Engineer
                     TNEB
                     Kallakurichi.
                     3.The Executive Engineer (O& M)
                     TNEB
                     Tirukoilur.
                     4.The Junior Engineer (O& M)
                     TNEB
                     Kandachipuram Village
                     Tirukoilur Taluk.                                           ...Respondents

                     Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
                     of India to set aside the fair and decretal order in I.A.No.696 of 2014 in
                     O.S.No.207 of 2012 dated 23.09.2014 on the file of the Principal District
                     Munsif, Tirukoilur.
                                           For Petitioners    : Mr.N.Suresh
                                           For Respondents    : Mr.P.Vasanth for R1
                                                              Mr.V.Viswanathan, SC for R2 to R4


                     1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                                C.R.P.(P.D).No.3739 of 2015



                                                         ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is directed as against the fair and

decretal order in I.A.No.696 of 2014 in O.S.No.207 of 2012 dated

23.09.2014 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Tirukoilur, thereby

dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners herein, to send the

unregistered partition deed dated 26.04.1994 to the Revenue Divisional

Officer, Villupuram to collect the stamp duty.

2.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the 1st

petitioner and the 1st respondent are brothers. The suit property was

originally belonged to their family and by the unregistered partition deed

dated 26.04.1994, half share of the suit property was allotted in favour of

the 1st petitioner. Another half share was allotted to one of his brother-

Jayasankar, by the very same partition deed. Thereafter by the registered

sale deed dated 30.10.2000 remaining half share of the suit property belongs

to Jayasankar was purchased by the 1st petitioner herein. In continuation of

the registered sale deed dated 30.10.2000, the 1st petitioner received patta in

his name, in respect of the suit property. Before partition of the suit

property, the electricity service connection was applied in the year 1989, in

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(P.D).No.3739 of 2015

the name of the 1st respondent herein, who is being the elder son of the

family. When the electricity service connection for the suit property was

about to granted in favour of the 1st respondent, the suit property was

allotted to the 1st petitioner herein and he filed the suit for mandatory

injunction, directing the respondents 2 to 4 herein to give agricultural

electricity service connection in favour of the 1st petitioner herein, as the

application stands in the name of the 1st respondent herein. In the said suit,

partition deed was marked as Ex.A.1. Therefore, the petitioner filed a

petition to send the unregistered partition deed for payment of stamp duty,

under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act. The trial Court without

considering the above said fact simply dismissed the application only for the

reason that the application was filed belatedly. The learned counsel for the

petitioners also relied upon the Judgment in the case of Sita Ram Bhama

Vs. Ramvatar Bhama reported in (2018) 15 Supreme Court Cases 130.

3.Per contra the learned counsel for the 1st respondent contended

that the petition in I.A.No.696 of 2014 in O.S.No.207 of 2012 has been

filed only to abuse the unregistered partition deed executed among the

family members. No partition deed was executed between the family

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(P.D).No.3739 of 2015

members, while filing the suit in O.S.No.207 of 2012, the petitioners herein

introduced the said sale deed. Though the 1st respondent objected the

document while marking the same before the trial Court, the trial Court

marked the unregistered partition deed as Ex.A.1. Once it is marked, it

cannot be impounded by the revenue officials. He also relied upon the

Section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act. Accordingly once the document is

admitted in evidence, it cannot be questioned. Therefore, the trial Court

rightly dismissed the petition and sought for dismissal of the Civil Revision

Petition.

4.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners; learned counsel

for the 1st respondent and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents

2 to 4.

5.The petitioners herein filed the suit for mandatory injunction

directing the respondents 2 to 4 herein to give agricultural electricity service

connection for the suit mentioned property, in the name of the 1st petitioner

herein. Originally the suit property was belonged to their family members

and by the partition deed dated 26.04.1994, half share of the suit property

was allotted in favour of the 1st petitioner herein. Remaining half share of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(P.D).No.3739 of 2015

the property was allotted to one of the brother of the 1st petitioner-

Jayasankar. After the partition by the registered sale deed dated 30.10.2000,

half of the remaining share in the suit schedule property also purchased by

the 1st petitioner herein. Therefore the partition deed dated 26.04.1994 was

already acted upon and only on the strength of the partition deed, sale deed

dated 30.10.2000 was executed in favour of the 1st petitioner herein.

Before partition, in the year 1989, agricultural electricity service connection

was applied for the suit schedule property in the name of the 1st respondent

herein, who is being the elder brother of the family. After partition deed and

also after the sale deed dated 30.10.2000, the entire suit property was

belonged to the 1st petitioner herein. Therefore, the 1st petitioner herein

has filed the suit for the above relief. In fact the partition deed dated

26.04.1994 was marked as Ex.A.1. Thereafter the petitioner filed the

application under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, to collect the stamp

duty by the Revenue Officials. In this regard, the learned counsel for the

petitioners relied upon the Judgment reported in (2018) 15 Supreme Court

Cases 130 in the case of Sita Ram Bhama Vs. Ramvatar Bhama.

Relevant portion of the Judgment is extracted hereunder:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(P.D).No.3739 of 2015

"15.Following the law laid down by this Court in the above case, we are of the opinion that the document dated 09.09.1994 may be admissible in evidence for collateral purpose provided the appellant gets the document impounded and to pay the stamp duty together with penalty as has been directed in the above case."

In the above cited Judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the

document can be admissible for collateral purpose provided the party gets

the document impounded and to pay the stamp duty together with penalty.

6.Accordingly, now the petitioners wanted to impound the Ex.A1

to the Revenue Official for payment of stamp duty along with penalty.

Therefore, the fair and decretal order in I.A.No.696 of 2014 in O.S.No.207

of 2012 dated 23.09.2014 on the file of the Principal District Munsif,

Tirukoilur, is perverse and contrary to law. Therefore, it is liable to be set

aside.

7.Accordingly, the order of the trial Court in I.A.No.696 of 2014

in O.S.No.207 of 2012 dated 23.09.2014 on the file of the Principal District

Munsif, Tirukoilur, is set aside and the Civil Revision Petition is allowed.