Madras High Court
J.George Manohar vs J.Regina on 15 July, 2021
CRP.PD.No.3208 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
C.R.P (PD).No.3208 of 2018
and
C.M.P.No.18355 of 2018
1. J.George Manohar
2. J.Alexis Rajakumar ... Petitioners
Vs.
1. J.Regina
2. J.Gregory Mohan
3. J.Julian Santhanaraj
4. J.Grace Rani ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, to set aside the order and decretal order dated 09th
July, 2018 made in I.A.No.16589 of 2017 in O.S.No.3961 of 2012 on the
file of the VII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai thereby allow the Civil
Revision Petition.
For Petitioners : M/s.Vasudha Thiagarajan
For Respondents : Notice Served (No Appearance)
(for R-1 & R-2)
Mr.K.Rajesh for
M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co
(for R-3 & R-4)
1/7
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP.PD.No.3208 of 2018
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed as against the fair and decretal
order passed in I.A.No.16589 of 2017 in O.S.No.3961 of 2012 dated
09.07.2018 on the file of the learned VII Additional City Civil Court,
Chennai, thereby dismissing the petition seeking permission to exhibit the
document dated 14.12.1989 filed along with the plaint subject to the
objections raised by the respondents 3 and 4 to be decided at later stage at
the time of arguments.
2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the
defendants. The petitioners filed a suit for partition and permanent
injunction in respect of the suit properties. While pending the suit, the
petitioners filed a petition and stated that the suit properties originally
belonged to their father and after his demise, the petitioners and the
respondents have entered into an oral agreement in the year 1989 and
agreed to enjoy the properties in the manner which they had arranged upon
the said arrangement. It was subsequently reduced into writing on
14.12.1989. It is family arrangement, which had already taken place.
Admittedly, it is an unregistered and unstamped one. Therefore, the
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP.PD.No.3208 of 2018
petitioners seek permission to exhibit the document dated 14.12.1989
subject to the objections raised by the respondents.
3. The only point for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition is
as to whether the family arrangement deed dated 14.12.1989 can be mutated
for the purpose of marking the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner
relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in 2017 (2) MWN (Civil)
165 (Navinraj -vs- Gnanasekar) and this Court held that the Court cannot
refuse to admit the document merely because objections have been raised by
the parties. Further, after collecting Stamp Duty and Penalty, if any, the
Court can note the objections including whether for a collateral purpose
such document could be looked into or not and defer its conclusions thereon
to the judgment stage. She also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India reported in 2015 (13) SCALE 615 (Yellapu Uma
Maheswari -vs- Buddha Jagadheeswararao). The Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India held that Section 17 (1) (b) of the Registration Act mandates that
any document which has the effect of creating and taking away the rights in
respect of an immovable property, must be registered and Section 49 of the
Act imposes bar on the admissibility of an unregistered document and deals
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP.PD.No.3208 of 2018
with the documents that are required to be registered under Section 17 of
the Registration Act. Further, in the said case before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India, the matter pertains to partition. In this context, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India held therein as follows:-
“16..... Taking us through the recitals of these two
documents, the learned senior counsel tried to impress
upon this Court particularly through the last few lines
from Exhibit B-21, that these documents are only
evidencing the past transaction of partition that has taken
place but through these documents no rights in immovable
property have accrued to the parties as envisaged under
Section 17 of the Registration Act and which makes these
documents out of the purview of Section 49 of the
Registration Act.”
4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India further held that it is well
settled that the nomenclature given to the document is not a decisive factor,
but the nature and substance of the transaction has to be determined with
reference to the terms of the documents and that the admissibility of a
document, is entirely dependent upon the recitals contained in that
document but not on the basis of the pleadings set up by the party who
seeks to introduce the document in question.
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP.PD.No.3208 of 2018
5. According to the petitioner, there was a family arrangement deed
dated 14.12.1989 and the suit properties were already settled between the
parties to the suit. In a suit for partition, an unregistered document can be
relied upon only for collateral purpose. An unstamped instrument is not
admissible in evidence even for collateral purposes, until the same is
impounded.
6. In view of the above discussion, this Civil Revision Petition is
allowed and the order passed in I.A.No.16589 of 2017 in O.S.No.3961 of
2012 dated 09.07.2018 is hereby set aside. It is made clear that after the
payment of stamp duty with penalty, the said document may be marked for
collateral purpose subject to proof and relevancy. Consequently, the
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
15.07.2021
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Index : Yes/No
kv
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP.PD.No.3208 of 2018
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
kv
To
1. The VII Additional Judge, City Civil Court,
Chennai.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R. Section, High Court of Madras.
C.R.P (PD).No.3208 of 2018
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP.PD.No.3208 of 2018
15.07.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
