Syed Rafia vs Sahul Hameed
2023 Latest Caselaw 6468 Mad

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 6468 Mad
Judgement Date : 19 June, 2023

Madras High Court

Syed Rafia vs Sahul Hameed on 19 June, 2023

                                                                        C.R.P.(MD) No.2546 of 2022

                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                 DATED : 19.06.2023

                                                        CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

                                             C.R.P.(MD) No.2546 of 2022
                                                        and
                                            C.M.P.(MD) No.12502 of 2022

                    1.Syed Rafia

                    2.Arifa Begam

                    3.Ramzan Begam

                    4.Ashma

                    5.Noor Muhamed                                             ... Petitioners

                                                          Vs.

                    Sahul Hameed                                               ... Respondent


                              Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
                    of India, to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 11.10.2022 passed in
                    unnumbered I.A.No. of 2022 in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No.152 of 2017
                    on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Srivilliputtur.


                                    For Petitioners   : Mr.M.Murugan

                                    For Respondent    : Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu

                                                        *******

                    _____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                    Page No. 1 of 7
                                                                          C.R.P.(MD) No.2546 of 2022

                                                        ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the fair and

decretal order dated 11.10.2022 passed in unnumbered I.A.No. of 2022 in

I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No.152 of 2017 on the file of the Additional Sub

Court, Srivilliputtur.

2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.152 of 2017 on the

file of the Additional Sub Court, Srivilliputtur. The said suit was filed by

the petitioners for partition of the suit schedule properties.

3. During the course of trial, the respondent who is the third

defendant in O.S.No.152 of 2017 has filed I.A.No.1 of 2019 to mark

additional unregistered Document which came to be allowed on

11.11.2019 with the following directions:-

6. .... Hence, the doct.No.3 unregistered sale deed dated 03.10.1994 is hereby ordered to be forwarded to the collector for the purpose of determining the stamp duty and collect the deficit stamp duty with penalty after taking the copy of the said documents. Further the objection regarding the admissibility and reliability of the documents can be decided at the appropriate stage.

_____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(MD) No.2546 of 2022

4. Pursuant to the above direction, the unregistered document, i.e.

Sale Deed dated 03.10.1994 was sent to the District Collector to collect

the deficit stamp duty. The District Collector has called upon the

respondent to pay the stamp duty and penalty equivalent to 10 times of

stamp duty payable on such unregistered Sale Deed dated 03.10.1994 of

Rs.66,638/-.

5. Meanwhile, the petitioners who are the plaintiffs filed

unnumbered I.A.No. of 2022 to reject the unregistered Sale Deed dated

03.10.1994. It is submitted that under Section 17 read with Section 47 of

the Registration Act, 1908, unregistered document is impermissible and

therefore, the court below ought to have rejected the claim of third

respondent to mark the unregistered Sale Deed dated 03.10.1994.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the

following decisions:-

i. K.Kanimozhi Vs. Kandasamy (Died), 2022 (2) MLJ 267.

ii. Thangamuthu and others Vs. A.Jeyaraj, 2020 (1) CTC 47.

iii. M.S.Haja Rasool Vs. Annadurai and others, I.L.R. (1997) 2 Madras 1375.

_____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(MD) No.2546 of 2022

7. The learned counsel for the respondent appears and submits that

the petitioners have not challenged the order passed on 11.11.2019 passed

in I.A.No.1 of 2019. The order cannot be diluted by filing a fresh I.A. to

reject unregistered Sale Deed dated 03.10.1994. It is submitted that the

Court below has refused to entertain the application filed by the

petitioners to reject the unregistered Sale Deed dated 03.10.1994, on

which, the respondent has paid the stamp duty and penalty equivalent to

10 times of stamp duty of Rs.66,638/- and therefore prayed for dismissal

of this Civil Revision Petition.

8. The learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the

decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sikikonda Madhava Rao Vs.

N.Hemalatha and others, dated in 14.11.2022, in SLP (C) No.14882 -

14883 of 2022, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-

In view of the aforesaid position, we do not think that the impugned judgment passed by the High Court directing that the aforesaid document should be de-

marked and not be treated as an exhibit, is correct and in accordance with law. Once a document has been admitted in evidence, such admission cannot be called in question at any stage of the suit or proceedings on the ground that the instrument has

_____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(MD) No.2546 of 2022

not been duly stamped. Objection as to admissibility of a document on the ground of sufficiency of stamp, has to raised when the document is tendered in evidence. Thereafter, it is not open to the parties, or even the court to re- examine the order or issue. To this extent, the impugned judgment is set aside and the appeal is allowed.

We clarify that we have not commented or examined the question of effect of purported non- registration of the sale deed in terms of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and the Registration Act, 1908. These questions and issues are left open to be decided by the trial court. All pleas and contentions raised by the parties in this regard can be raised before the trial court, which will examine the said aspect and other issues without being influenced by the present order and the impugned judgment.

9. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel

for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent.

10. The purpose of the petitioners for filing of I.A. to dilute the

order dated 11.11.2019 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2019 cannot be

countenanced as the petitioners cannot indirectly dilute the order dated

11.11.2019 by filing a fresh I.A. to reject the unregistered Sale Deed

dated 03.10.1994 that would also amount to impeding the on going trial in

O.S.No.152 of 2017 which has been instituted by the petitioners. By

_____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(MD) No.2546 of 2022

filing the fresh I.A., the petitioners seek to prolong the longevity of the

suit filed by them for partition of suit schedule properties.