Court is not bound to look into unstamped and unregistered documents.

A.S. VENKATACHALAMOORTHY, J.

O. S. A. No. 237 of 2000 has been filed by the plaintiff in the suit C.S.No. 545 of 1985 against the order passed by a learned single Judge, holding that the unregistered document dated 29-12-1974 styled as 'Memorandum of partial partition can be admitted in evidence and looked into for collateral purposes. O.S.No. 274 of 2000 has been filed by the 2nd defendant in the suit against the same order of the learned single Judge, claiming that the document in question is a mere record of family arrangement and the same does not require registration and is admissible in evidence and can be looked into for all purposes.

2. For the purpose of convenience, we adopt the cause title as given in O.S.A. No. 237 of 2000. The appellant as plaintiff, originally instituted the suit as plaintiff as against the father by name Chakrapani Reddiar, since dead, as 1st defendant and his brother by name Kulasekaran as 2nd defendant. Pending suit, the 1st defendant died and the defendants 2 to 7 were recorded as legal representatives of the 1st defendant as per the Order dated 18-3-1987 in Application No. 4137 of 1986.

3. The appellant/plaintiff filed the said suit praying the Court as the first relief to pass a decree declaring that the Memorandum dated 29-12-1974 as void, illegal and unenforceable. However, pending suit, the appellant on 9-1-2000, filed a memo to the effect that he is not pressing the above said first relief as he felt the same as unnecessary.

4. The other prayers made by the appellant in the plaint are, to declare that the properties described in the Schedule 'A' to 'D' are joint family properties available for general partition and to allot 1/3rd share in all such family properties and for other reliefs. In substance, the plea of the appellant is that the family continues to be joint even now and that for convenient possession and enjoyment a scheme and separate possession was thought of as between the members of the coparceners, nearly 20 years after the father (1st defendant) assumed charge of the family properties. It is the case of the appellant/plaintiff, the memorandum dated 29-12-1974 though styled as memorandum of partial partition was, in substance and effect an arrangement inter se pursuant to a meaningful Tax Planning arrangement as between the parties for the purpose of possession and enjoyment and that it was never the intention of the parties that the arrangement dated 29-12-1974 was to be understood, interpreted and given effect to as if it was a partition of joint family properties as is traditionally, customarily and legally understood. It is also contended by the appellant that the so called memorandum of partition made on 29-12-1974 continued and continues still to be an arrangement and not with the intention of the plaintiff or the defendants, partitioning the property.

We are not referring to the other pleadings as the same are not necessary for the disposal of this appeal.

5. The father as 1st defendant filed a written statement in February, 1986. The brother of the appellant as 2nd defendant in the suit filed a separate written statement.

In substance, the case of the defendants as set out in the written statements is that under the memorandum of partial partition of family assets, entered into on 29-12-1974, viz., the document in question, the partition of the house properties and some other properties were recorded. Thereafter, the remaining agricultural lands were also partitioned on 1-9-1997 and that partition which was carried out on 1-1-1997 was reaffirmed by a registered document dated 21-7-1980. The specific case of the defendant is that series of partition commencing from 29-12-1974 to 21-7-1980 resulted in full and final partition of all the joint family properties following the earlier division in status which was acted upon by all the parties and was meant to be of a permanent in nature.

6. When the trial was commenced, the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and durin