Admissibility of unregistered document is not automatic.

(Revision Petition filed against the order dated 28.1.2005, made in O.S.No.122/2004, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Gobichettipalayam.)

This Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 28.1.2005 made in O.S.No.122/2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Gobichettipalayam.

2. The plaintiff is the revision petitioner.

3. The suit O.S.No.102/1999 has been filed by the plaintiff/revision petitioner for partition and separate possession and for injunction, on the file of the Sub-Judge, Gobichettipalayam against the respondents/defendants. The first respondent filed a written statement and contested the suit. Subsequently the suit was transferred to the District Munsif Court, Gobichettipalayam and re-numbered as O.S.No.122/2004. Pending disposal of the suit, the plaintiff/revision petitioner filed an Application in I.A.No.1460/2004 under Order 7 Rule 14(3) for receiving the additional document, namely, the release deed dated 14.8.1994. The 1st respondent filed a counter and raised objections that the release deed was insufficiently stamped, unregistered and also forged and consequently it was inadmissible in evidence. The court below received the document stating that the question of forgery and admissibility can be decided at a later stage and allowed the I.A. as there was no valid objection for condoning the delay and granting leave to file the document. The 1st respondent thereafter did not challenge the said order passed in I.A.No.1460/2004.

4. When the plaintiff/revision petitioner came to the box to give evidence, the counsel for the 1st respondent raised an objection that the release deed dated 14.8.1994 was not sufficiently stamped and it was unregistered too and therefore it should not be admitted in evidence. Accepting the objections raised by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent herein, the learned District Munsif rejected the release deed to be marked as an exhibit on the ground that it was insufficiently stamped and unregistered. Aggrieved by the said order of the trial court, the plaintiff/revision petitioner has filed the above Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the 1st respondent. I have also gone through the documents and the judgments relied on by them in support of their submissions.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner relied on the judgment reported in 2002(3) CTC 739 (Chellammal v. Menakshi) and submitted that the lower court erred in rejecting the document on the ground that it was not properly stamped and it was unregistered also, without giving an opportunity to the plaintiff. In this judgment, in para 6 and 7, this court has held as follows:-

“6. It is well settled in law that when a document is tendered in evidence by either party and objection is raised against the same on the ground that the document is not duly stamped under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act or for want of registration as contemplated under Section 17 read with Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, it is obligatory on the part of the court to apply its mind to the objections raised and to decide the objection in accordance with law. In other words, no document could be admitted on its face value irrespective of the fact whether it is duly stamped or otherwise; not it could be rejected as inadmissible for the same reason or otherwise for want of registration automatically.

7. It is also well settled in law that there is no impediment for admitting a document which is merely unregistered even for collateral purposes, as the unregistered documents can be looked into for collateral purposes and thereafter could be admitted by the trial Court, as repeatedly held in:

(i) Krishnaswami Naidu v. Secretary of State, AIR 1953 Mad. 15 (DB); (ii) Kovilpatti Sri Dhandayuthapani Trust v. Tilakaraj 1993 (1) MLJ 552; (iii) Kousalya Ammal v. Valliammai Ammal 1997 (2