Madras High Court
Mohan vs S.Ganesan on 8 October, 2025
CRP.(PD)No.4215 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.10.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
CRP.No.4215 of 2025
and CMP.No.21691 of 2025
1.Mohan
2.Kumar
3.Rani ... Petitioners / Defendants 1, 3 & 4
vs.
1.S.Ganesan .... Respondent No.1 / Plaintiff
2.Pannerselvam .... Respondent No.2 / Defendant 2
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India as against the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.4 of 2024 in
O.S.No.57 of 2022 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Nagapattinam dated
18.06.2025 and to set aside the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.A.Sundara Vadhanan
For Respondents : Mr.S.Parthasarathy
ORDER
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 12:46:38 pm )
The unsuccessful defendants 1, 3 and 4 have preferred this Civil Revision
Petition. The plaintiff, namely one Ganesan has filed a Suit in O.S.No.57 of 2022,
on the file of the District Munsif Court, Nagapattinam seeking for the relief of
Declaration and for Permanent Injunction. The defendants have filed their written
statement and necessary issues were framed. The plaintiff examined himself as
PW1 and the case was posted for cross examination of PW1 on 27.08.2024 and at
that stage, the plaintiff has filed an application in I.A.No.4 of 2024 in O.S.No.4 of
2024 under Section 151 CPC to send the unregistered sale deed for assessment for
stamping and for payment of penalty. Upon hearing either side, the Court below,
vide order dated 18.06.2025, allowed the application on the ground that while
marking the documents the defendants can raise their legal objections and if the
documents is sent for assessment and stamping and for payment of penalty, no
prejudice would be caused to the either side. Aggrieved over the same, the
defendants have preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners would submit
that the plaintiff is claiming title based on unregistered sale deed which is now
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 12:46:38 pm )
sought to be stamped, when the document requires registration, the impounding of
the document will not validate the registration. When the document to be stamped
is against the statutory provisions of Registration Act, whether the collection of
stamp duty as per Stamp Act can be permissible. When the document is under
challenge in the suit by the defendants / revision petitioners herein in the written
statement, based on the same, the issue is also framed, whether the proceedings to
impound the document for the purpose of paying stamp duty, is only to fill up the
lacuna in the case of the plaintiff and the same affects the right of defence of the
revision petitioners/defendants. The learned counsel appearing for the revision
petitioners, in support of his contentions, relied upon the judgment of this Court in
Amertham v. Thannace and another [2020 (4) CTC 395] to show that unstamped
unregistered document is inadmissible in evidence. It cannot be relied upon in
Court proceedings when the document becomes basis for a person claiming title.
Reliance has been placed to yet another judgment of this Court in Gajendiran v.
V.Seetharaman and 3 others [CRP(PD)No.1610 of 2016 dated 18.02.2021] to
show that unregistered sale deed cannot be admitted in evidence a the plaintiff
claims title and possession based on unregistered sale deed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 12:46:38 pm )
3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit
that an unregistered and unstamped document can be marked as evidence for
collateral purpose, where the document now sought to be stamped, when the
document requires to be registered, the impounding of the document will not
affect the rights of the other side. The revision petitioners/defendants can very
well raise their objections while marking the documents. The learned counsel
appearing for the respondents, in support of his contentions, relied on the
following judgments:
(i) V.Ramesh v. V.Nagaraj [CRP(PD) No.4305 of 2022 dated 04.06.2024]
(ii) Kasthuri v. R.Hemalatha [CRP(MD)No.1877 of 2017 dated 01.02.2022]
(iii) Ananda Nayagi v. Kannikumari and Others [CRP Nos.2893 & 2896 of
2022].
4. This Court heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the entire
materials available on record.
5. The Suit is filed for declaration of title based on the unregistered sale
deed dated 18.08.1990 or in the alternative to declare the plaintiff's title based on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 12:46:38 pm )
adverse possession. It is seen from the records that the revision petitioners /
defendants have denied the execution of the sale deed dated 25.04.1987 executed
by one Marimuthu in favour of the plaintiff, is not a valid one. The said
Marimuthu is the father of the defendants 1 to 3. The said Marimuthu died on
10.02.2005. The plaintiff is claiming title based on the unregistered sale deed
which is now sought to be stamped. When the document requires to be registered,
impounding of the document will not validate the registration alone. The
document is yet to be marked. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the
Court below, vide letter in D.No. 243/2025 dated 20.06.2025 addressed to the
District Revenue Officer, Nagapattinam stating that the Court below sending the
unregistered sale deed dated 18.08.1990 for assessing the deficit stamp duty
penalty. The proceedings to impound the document for the purpose of paying the
stamp duty would not amount to filling up the lacuna and the same will not affect
the rights of the defendants / revision petitioners, since the revision
petitioners/defendants have a right to raise legal objections while marking the
documents.
6. It is well settled that impounding will not validate the registration.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 12:46:38 pm )
Impounding addresses deficiencies in stamp duty under the Stamp Act.
Registration is a separate requirement under the Registration Act. Impounding
allows an unstamped document to be admitted as evidence upon payment of duty /
penalty, but it does not cure the lack of registration which is necessary to confer
title. Impounding and paying stamp duty only cures the defect of stamp duty. It
does not cure non-registration. A document that is not duly stamped or is
unstamped is inadmissible in evidence for any purpose. Impounding is the
process which the Court seizes the document and ensures the required stamp duty
and penalty are paid. Once paid, the document becomes admissible in evidence.
An impounded but unregistered sale deed cannot be used to prove title or
ownership. Its utility is limited to being admitted as a evidence for a collateral
purpose, such as proving the nature of possession or the fact of a prior agreement,
but not for proving the transactions of sale itself.
7. At this juncture it is useful to refer to the decision in Omprakash v.
Laxminarayan [(2014) 1 SCC 618], wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as
under:
“From a plain reading of the aforesaid provision (S. 35 of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 12:46:38 pm )
Stamp Act), it is evident that an authority to receive evidence shall not
admit any instrument unless it is duly stamped. An instrument not
duly stamped shall be admitted in evidence on payment of the duty
with which the same is chargeable or in the case of an instrument
insufficiently stamped, of the amount required to make up such duty
together with penalty. As we have observed earlier, the deed of
agreement having been insufficiently stamped, the same was
inadmissible in evidence. The court being an authority to receive a
document in evidence to give effect thereto, the agreement to sell with
possession is an instrument which requires payment of the stamp duty
applicable to a deed of conveyance. Duty as required, has not been
paid and, hence, the trial court rightly held the same to be
inadmissible in evidence.”
8. It was also observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision in
Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat [AIR 2001 SC 1158] that,
“it is an archaic practice that during the evidence collecting
stage, whenever any objection is raised regarding admissibility of any
material in evidence the court does not proceed further without
passing order on such objection’. And the Court directed as under:
“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.”
9. In yet another judgment in S. Kaladevi Vs. V.R. Somasundaram [(2010)
5 SCC 401] the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
“11. The main provision in Section 49 provides that any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 12:46:38 pm )
document which is required to be registered, shall not affect any
immovable property comprised therein nor such document shall be
received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property. The
proviso, however, would show that an unregistered document
affecting immovable property and required by the 1908 Act or the
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to be registered may be received as an
evidence to the contract in a suit for specific performance or as
evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be affected by
registered instrument. By virtue of the proviso, therefore, an
unregistered sale deed of an immovable property of the value of
Rs.100 and more could be admitted in evidence as evidence of a
contract in a suit for specific performance of the contract. Such an
unregistered sale deed can also be admitted in evidence as an
evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by
registered document. When an unregistered sale deed is tendered in
evidence, not as evidence of a completed sale, but as proof of an oral
agreement of sale, the deed can be received in evidence making an
endorsement that it is received only as evidence of an oral agreement
of sale under the proviso to Section 49 of the 1908, Act.
12. Recently in the case of K.B. Sahaand Sons Private
Limited v. Development Consultant Limited ,(2008) 8 SCC 564, this
Court noticed the following statement of Mulla in his Indian
Registration Act, 7th Edition, at page 189:
“……The High Courts of Calcutta, Bombay, Allahabad,
Madras, Patna, Lahore, Assam, Nagpur, Pepsu, Rajasthan, Orissa,
Rangoon and Jammu & Kashmir; the former Chief Court of Oudh;
the Judicial Commissioner’s Court at Peshawar, Ajmer and
Himachal Pradesh and the Supreme Court have held that a
document which requires registration under Section 17 and which is
not admissible for want of registration to prove a gift or mortgage or
sale or lease is nevertheless admissible to prove the character of the
possession of the person who holds under it……”
The Hon'ble Apex Court then culled out the following
principles: (K.B. Saha case, SCC p.577, para 334)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 12:46:38 pm )
“1. A document required to be registered, if unregistered is not
admissible into evidence under Section 49 of the Registration Act.
2. Such unregistered document can however be used as an
evidence of collateral purpose as provided in the proviso to Section
49 of the Registration Act.
3. A collateral transaction must be independent of, or divisible
from, the transaction to effect which the law required registration.
4. A collateral transaction must be a transaction not itself
required to be effected by a registered document, that is, a
transaction creating, etc. any right, title or interest in immovable
property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards.
5. If a document is inadmissible in evidence for want of
registration, none of its terms can be admitted in evidence and that
to use a document for the purpose of proving an important clause
would not be using it as a collateral purpose.
To the principles above, one more principle may be added, namely
that a document required to be registered, if unregistered, can be
admitted in evidence, as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific
performance.[Ameer Minhaj v. Dierdre Elizabeth (Wright) Issar,
2018 (7) SCC 639 and S.Kaladevi v. V.R.Somasundaram (2010 5
SCC 401 ].”
10. In the decision in Kalaivani @ Devasena v. J. Ramu 2010(1) CTC 27,
it was held that an opportunity should be given to the party who produces the
document with insufficient stamp, to pay the deficit stamp duty and penalty so that
the document could be exhibited; and that if penalty is not paid, the document
should be impounded. It is held as under:
“24. .. It is well settled that even an unregistered document is
admissible in evidence for collateral purpose provided it is adequately
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 12:46:38 pm )
stamped under the Stamp act. If the document is both unstamped and
unregistered, as the document in question here, it is no doubt true that
it cannot be looked into for collateral purpose also. But such a
document should not be thrown out at the threshold itself and an
opportunity must be extended to the party who wants to mark the
document on his side by directing him to pay the deficit stamp duty
along with the penalty upto date, then the document could be admitted
in evidence for collateral purpose. If the person does not pay the Court,
then the document is to be impounded and sent to the Collector for
taking action under the law.”
11. In the light of the principles laid down in the aforesited decisions, this
Court finds no reason to interfere with the order of the Court below to impound
the document for the purpose of paying the stamp duty, as the would not amount
to filling up the lacuna and the same will not affect the rights of the defendants /
revision petitioners. There is no merit in this petition.
12. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed, confirming
the order dated 18.06.2025 made in I.A.No.4 of 2024 in O.S.No.57 of 2022 passed
by the District Munsif Court, Nagapattinam. It is always open to the revision
petitioners/defendants to raise their legal objections while marking the documents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 12:46:38 pm )
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
08.10.2025
Intex : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Jvm
To
District Munsif Court,
Nagapattinam.
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
Jvm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 12:46:38 pm )
08.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 12:46:38 pm )
