No document shall be received in evidence if it is not properly stamped.

(Civil Revision Petition filed praying to set aside the order dated 28.07.2006, refusing permission to mark the family arrangement deed dated 13.05.1993 and allow the petitioner to mark the said document on behalf of the first defendant.)

The revision petitioner is the first defendant in the suit. The suit has been filed for partition and separate possession by the first respondent herein stating that the first respondent constitutes a Hindu Joint Family along with defendants 1 and 2 and she is a co-parcener in the suit schedule properties and that she is entitled to one share as per Section 29-A of the Hindu Successions Act and as the first defendant/revision petitioner is said to have executed a settlement deed in favour of the second defendant/second respondent herein, and sale deed in favour of the third defendant/3rd respondent on 25.09.1992, the suit was necessitated as the petitioner/first defendant do not have the right to alienate the share of the first respondent.

2. The petitioner/first defendant resisted the suit stating that she was not in possession and the plaintiff eloped and got married in the year 1991 and that in a Panchayat arranged at her instance on 03.11.1991, she agreed to receive a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards her share. ON 13.05.1993, the said family arrangement was reduced into writing under which the first respondent/plaintiff received Rs.50,000/- and gave away her rights in the suit property. The said agreement was signed by the parties concerned in the presence of Panchayatdars and that the first respondent/plaintiff do not have right to question the right of the petitioner/first defendant n the suit property and hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

3. During trial, the petitioner/first defendant, to substantiate his case, had filed his proof affidavits on 27.07.2006 along with (1) original family agreement dated 13.05.1993 and (2) letter written by the first respondent/plaintiff dated 09.07.2004 and the first respondent/plaintiff objected the marking of the agreement dated 13.05.1993 and sought time to produce records to contest the marking of document dated 13.05.1993. The case was adjourned to 28.07.2006. On 28.07.2006, the learned Judge rejected the request to mark the document stating that unregistered document cannot be marked for any purpose. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner/first defendant has come forward with the present civil revision petition.

4. Learned counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff would contend that a document which ought to have been registered under the Indian Registration Act, which has not been registered shall not be marked even for the collateral purposes. He placed reliance on the following judgments:

(1) 1937 II MLJ 805 (Penatapati Nageswara Rao Vs. Moka Narayanamurthi and another)

(2) AIR 1946 P.C. 51 (Ram Rattan Vs.Parma Nand)

(3) AIR 1971 SC 1070 (Jupudi V. Pulavarthi)

(4) AIR 1987 Patna 191 (FB) Amar Singh Yadav V. Shanthi Devi.

(5) 2001 (1) CTC 112 (AC.Lakshmipathy & Anr. V. A.M.Chakrapani Reddiar and 6 ors.

5. In 1937 II MLJ 805 (Penatapati Nageswara Rao Vs. Moka Narayanamurthi and another) a Division Bench of this Court held that the improperly stamped document could not be used to prove a collateral purpose, namely the acknowledgment of liability on previous notes.

6. In AIR 1946 P.C. 51 (Ram Rattan Vs.Parma Nand) the Privy Council held that the words 'for any purpose' in Section 35 of the Stamp Act, should be given their natural meaning and effect and would include a collateral purpose. Where an unstamped document is admitted in proof of some collateral matter it is certainly admitted in evidence for that purpose which the statute has prohibited. Consequently, an unstamped partition deed cannot be used to corroborate the oral evidence for the purposes of determining even the factum of partition as distinct from its terms.

7. In AIR 1971 SC 1070 (Jupudi V. Pulavarthi) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in view of Sections 35 and 36, seconda