Madras High Court
Amutha vs / on 18 February, 2025
Author: R.Vijayakumar
Bench: R.Vijayakumar
C.R.P(MD)No.1684 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 18.02.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
C.R.P(MD)No.1684 of 2022
and
C.M.P(MD)No.7398 of 2022
1.Amutha
2.Aravind Sha
3.Boopathi Raj
4.Bhuvanesha
5.Susila Sha ... Petitioners/Petitioners 1-5/
Defendants 3,5-8
Somasundaram @ S.S.Sundaram (Died) ... ------/6th Petitioner/
9th Defendant
6.Shenthilvel ... Petitioner/7th Petitioner/
10th Defendant
7.S.Manikandan
8.M.Manjula ... Petitioners/Respondents 6&7/
Lrs of the 9th Defendant
Vs.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)No.1684 of 2022
Raju @ Mohanasundaram (Died) ... ---/1st Respondent/
1st Plaintiff
1.M.Selvi
2.A.Visalakshi
3.M.Sundaralingam
4.M.Om Prakash ... Respondents/Respondents 2-5/
Plaintiffs 2-5
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of
Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order passed in
I.A.No.105 of 2020 in O.S.No.1058 of 1994 on the file of I Additional
Sub Court, Madurai, dated 14.06.2022.
For Petitioner : Mr.H.Arumugam
For R1 - R4 : Mr.L.Shajichellan
ORDER
The defendants 3, 5 to 8 in O.S.No.1058 of 1994 on the file of I
Additional Sub Court, Madurai are the revision petitioners herein.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. The respondents in the revision petition as plaintiffs have filed
the above said suit for the relief of declaration of title and permanent
injunction. A perusal of the plaint averments reveal that the plaintiffs
have relied upon a Varthamana letter, dated 30.10.1988 in Paragraph No.
9 of the plaint. The plaintiffs have also relied upon an undertaking letter,
dated 21.01.1987 in Paragraph No.10 of the plaint.
3. A perusal of these two documents reveal that the document,
dated 30.10.1988 is said have been executed by the 1st defendant in
favour of the deceased plaintiff relinquishing his share. The document,
dated 21.01.1987 has been executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of the
deceased plaintiff which is an undertaking letter that she would not make
any claim over the property.
4. These two documents are unregistered and unstamped
documents. These documents were marked by P.W.1 during his chief-
examination as Exhibits A.3 and A.4 respectively. At the time of marking
of the documents, the defendants strongly objected to the marking of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
these documents on the ground that both of them are unregistered and
unstamped documents and they cannot be relied upon. However, the trial
Court has proceeded to mark the documents as Exhibits A.3 and A.4.
5. When the suit was posted for the evidence on the side of the
defendants, the defendants have filed I.A.No.105 of 2020 to eschew
Exhibits A.3 and A.4 documents on the ground that these two documents
are unregistered and unstamped documents and they cannot be relied
upon even for the collateral purposes. This application came to be
dismissed on the ground that the defendants had remained silent for a
long time after the marking of Exhibits and the present application has
been filed only to drag on the suit which is already 27 years old. The trial
Court further found that it is not inclined to reject Exhibits A.3 and A.4
at this stage. However, the proof, relevancy and admissibility will be
decided during the final disposal of the suit. Challenging the said order,
the present revision petition has been filed.
6. According to the learned counsel appearing for the revision
petitioners, these two documents, namely Exhibits A.3 and A.4 are relied
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
upon by the plaintiffs for claiming title to the property. These two
documents are unregistered and unstamped documents. Therefore, they
cannot be used even for collateral purposes. He further contended that
the defendants have raised strong objection at the time of marking of
these documents. However, ignoring the said objection, these two
documents have been marked. He further contended that as far as
admissibility of a document is concerned, it could be raised at any stage
of the suit and therefore, the delay cannot be a ground for dismissing the
application to eschew Exhibits A.3 and A.4.
7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners has also relied
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2001) 3
SCC 1 (Bipin Shantilal Panchal Vs. State of Gujarat & Another) to
impress upon the Court that where an objection has been raised with
regard to the non-payment of the stamp duty, the issue has to be decided
then and there and it cannot be relegated to the final hearing. The learned
counsel for the revision petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of
this Court reported in 2020 (1) CTC 47 (Thangamuthu & Others Vs.
A.Jeyaraj), wherein this Court has held that even when no objection was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
raised at the time of marking a document, if the objection relates to
admissibility of a document, it can be raised at any stage of the
proceedings. Hence, he prayed for allowing the revision petition.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents
contended that the suit is of the year 1994 and the disputed documents,
namely Exhibits A.3 and A.4 were marked through P.W.1 on 08.10.2007.
The present application has been filed on 13.01.2020 to eschew those
two documents in a belated stage only to drag on the proceedings. When
the trial Court has already found that the admissibility could be decided
at the time of final disposal of the suit, there cannot be any grievance for
the revision petitioners.
9. I have carefully considered the submissions made on either side
and perused the material records.
10. A perusal of Exhibit A.3 reveals that it is a Varthamana Letter
executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the deceased plaintiff
relinquishing his share in the suit schedule properties. A perusal of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Exhibit A.4 reveals that it is an undertaking deed/release deed said to
have been executed by the 2nd defendant to the deceased plaintiff. At the
time of marking of these two documents, objection has been raised by the
defendants and it was also recorded in the deposition of P.W.1. Now, the
trial Court has found that the present application to eschew these two
documents has been filed belatedly and relegated the issue of
admissibility to the final disposal of the suit. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
in a judgment reported in (2001) 3 SCC 1 (Bipin Shantilal Panchal Vs.
State of Gujarat & Another) in Paragraph No.14 has held as follows:
“14. When so recast, the practice which can be a
better substitute is this: Whenever an objection is
raised during evidence-taking stage regarding the
admissibility of any material or item of oral evidence
the trial court can make a note of such objection and
mark the objected document tentatively as an exhibit in
the case (or record the objected part of the oral
evidence) subject to such objections to be decided at
the last stage in the final judgment. If the court finds at
the final stage that the objection so raised is
sustainable the Judge or Magistrate can keep such
evidence excluded from consideration. In our view
there is no illegality in adopting such a course.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(However, we make it clear that if the objection relates
to deficiency of stamp duty of a document the court has
to decide the objection before proceeding further. For
all other objections the procedure suggested above can
be followed.)”
11. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is
clear that whenever an objection is raised during evidence-taking stage,
the objection can be recorded and the document can be marked
tentatively. However, objections have to be considered in the final
judgment. In the present case, the objection has been raised with regard
to the deficit stamp duty also.
12. Considering the fact that the suit is of the year 1994 and the
document has been marked in the year 2007 and the present application
has been filed in the year 2020 to eschew the document, this Court is not
inclined to interfere in the order passed by the trial Court. It is needless
to point out that the admissibility of the document shall be decided by the
trial Court during the final disposal of the suit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
13. With the said observations, this Civil Revision Petition stands
disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is
closed.
18.02.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
gbg
To
1.The I Additional Sub Court,
Madurai,
2.The Section Officer,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.VIJAYAKUMAR ,J.
gbg
Order made in
18.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
