Madras High Court
Mr.Chandrababu vs Janakiraman on 2 January, 2024
C.R.P.(NPD).No.2209 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02.01.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
C.R.P.(PD).No.2209 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.16738 of 2021
Mr.Chandrababu ... Petitioner
vs.
1.Janakiraman
2.Sivanandan
3.Mrs.Mariammal
4.Mrs.Sokkammal
5.Ravi
6.Shanthi
7.The Tahsildar,
Thiruvallur Taluk.
8.The District Collector,
District Collectorate,
Thiruvallur. ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of
India, praying to set aside the judgment and decreetal order dated 28.07.2021
passed by the Additional District Munsif, Thiruvallur in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in
O.S.No.272 of 2014.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD).No.2209 of 2021
For Petitioner : Mr.A.S.Balaji
For Respondents :Mr.C.Sathish
Government Advocate (C.S)
for R7 and R8
No Appearance for R1 to R6
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed
by the Courts below allowing the application filed by the respondents to
impound document and send it for Collector for collection of stamp duty
together with penalty.
2. The respondents 1 and 2 filed a suit for declaration of title
and for consequential injunction, mandatory injunction etc. The case of the
respondents is that the suit property originally belonged to one Manicka
Reddy, son of Rangappa Reddy. The grandfather of contesting respondent
viz., Kesava Rddy, exchanged his lands with suit properties for the sake of
convenience and enjoyment. The exchange of properties including the suit
property was reduced into writing in a document dated 15.10.1961. It is the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
case of the contesting respondents that pursuant to exchange deed, their
grandfather had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
Further, on his demise his son Selvam, father of the contesting respondents
got the property and he enjoyed the same. The father of the respondents also
mortgaged the properties and exchanged control over the same.
3. It was further averred by the contesting respondents that the
petitioner attempted to interfere with their possession, therefore, the above
said suit was laid. Pending the suit, the contesting respondent filed an
application in I.A.No.1 of 2020 to send the exchange deed dated 15.06.1961
for impounding and collection of stamp duty by Revenue Divisional Officer.
The said application was allowed by the Court below. Aggrieved by the
same, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
the document sought to be impounded is an unregistered and unstamped
exchange deed and hence it cannot be admitted in evidence. It was further
submitted that the respondents 1 and 2 based their claim over the suit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
property only on exchange deed dated 15.10.1961 and therefore, to prove
their title, the said exchange deed cannot be admitted in evidence. In support
of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on
the following judgments:
(i) Thangamuthu and two others Vs. A.Jeyaraj
reported in 2020 (1) CTC 47;
(ii) Dhananjezhiyan and another Vs. Kuppu and
others reported in 2020 (5) CTC 812.
5. By virtue of Section 35 of Indian Stamp Act, unstamped or
sufficiently stamped documents cannot be admitted in evidence for any
purposes including the collateral purposes. In other words, the bar under
Section 35 of Stamp Act is total and insufficiently stamped documents cannot
be admitted in evidence at all for any purpose. However, the bar under
Section 49 r/w 17 of Registration Act is different. It is settled law,
unregistered document can be looked into for collateral purposes of proving
nature of possession. In this regard, it would be appropriate to refer to the
decision of Apex Court in Bondar Singh v. Nihal Singh reported in 2003 (2)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CTC 635, the relevant observation reads as follows:
“5 . The main question as we have already noted is the question
of continuous possession of the plaintiffs over the suit lands. The
sale deed dated 9.5.1931 by Fakir Chand, father of the
defendants in favour of Tola Singh, the predecessor interest of
the plaintiff, is an admitted document in the sense its execution is
not in dispute. The only defence set up against said document is
that it is unstamped and unregistered and therefore it cannot
convey title to the land in favour of plaintiffs. Under the law a
sale deed is required to be properly stamped and registered
before it can convey title to the vendee. However, legal position
is clear law that a document like the sale deed in the present
case, even though not admissible in evidence, can be looked into
for collateral purposes. In the present case the collateral
purpose to be seen is the nature of possession of the plaintiffs
over the suit land.”
6. In view of the settled law that unregistered document can be
looked into for collateral purposes of proving possession, merely because the
exchange deed is unregistered document, there is no total prohibition from
admitting the same in evidence. Of course, the respondents 1 and 2 cannot
rely on exchange deed dated 15.10.1961 to prove their title over the suit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
property. However, they can use it for limited purpose of proving nature of
possession provided the stamp duty together with penalty is paid by them.
Now by impugned order, the document is sent to the Collector for the purpose
of collection of stamp duty together with penalty.
7. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order sending
the document for impounding and collection of stamp duty. However, it is
clarified that even after payment of stamp duty with penalty, the respondents
1 and 2 can use it only for proving nature of possession and the same cannot
be used for proving the title under the documents.
8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed.
No costs. Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.
02.01.2024
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
ub
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
The Additional District Munsif,
Thiruvallur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
ub
02.01.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
