No right can be claimed on the basis of unregistered and unstamped document.

A partition panchayat muchalika dated 23-12-2001 was sought to be marked as defence exhibit on behalf of the petitioners/defendants. The respondent/plaintiff objected to the same, as it is inadmissible under the Indian Registration Act and Indian Stamp Act. Accepting the said objection, the trial Court dismissed the prayer of the petitioners/defendants to mark the said document as an exhibit. Hence, this civil revision petition by the petitioners/defendants.

2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction against the petitioners/defendants. The respondent/plaintiff is the younger brother to the first petitioner. According to the respondent/plaintiff, mother Ramayammal settled the suit property in his favour and that he was put in possession. Since the petitioners attempted to interfere with his possession, he filed the suit.

3. The suit was contested by the petitioners that the suit property was ancestral property and the subject matter of partition panchayat muchalika and therefore, the mother Ramayammal had no right to settle the property in favour of the respondent/plaintiff through the settlement deed.

4. At the time of trial, the partition panchayat muchalika dated 23-12-2001 was put in evidence through D.W.2. Admittedly, the said document is an unregistered and unstamped document. The respondent/plaintiff opposed the application on the ground that the document is unstamped and unregistered and the same was sought to be marked, which is prohibited under the Indian Stamp Act and Indian Registration Act and the same was not admissible, especially when the defendants claim right in the suit property on the basis of the said document. It was contended by the petitioners/defendants before the trial Court that the same is admissible, because the defendants sought to use the same only for collateral purpose. However, the trial Court dismissed the application.

5. Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioners would reiterate the arguments advanced before the trial Court on the strength of a decision of this Court reported in 2001 (1) M.L.J. 1 (LAKSHMIPATHY Vs. CHAKRAPANI REDDIAR) and a decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2001 (3) S.C.C. 1 (BIPIN SHANTILAL PANCHAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT) and submit that the partition panchayat muchalika, the document in question, would reveal the past transaction, wherein the properties were already divided and in continuation of such partition, the property which was omitted in such partition, was discussed in the said document. Therefore, no transfer of title takes place by virtue of the said document and consequently, the document ought to have been admitted for collateral purpose.

6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the impugned order.

7. It is settled law that if the family arrangement is reduced to writing and it purports to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any right, title or interest of any immovable property, it must be properly stamped and duly registered as per the Indian Stamp Act and Indian Registration Act. If the family arrangement is stamped, but not registered, it can be looked into for collateral purposes. A person cannot claim a right or title to a property under the said document, which is being looked into only for collateral purpose. A family arrangement which is not stamped and not registered, cannot be looked into for any purpose, in view of the specific bar in Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act. A document must be read as a whole. As to the nature of transaction under the document, it cannot be decided by merely seeing the nomenclature. Mere usage of past tense in the document should not be taken indicative of a prior arrangement. The expression "collateral purposes" is no doubt a very vague one and the Court must decide in each case whether the parties who seek to use the unregistered document for a purpose which is really a collateral one