The main legal point established in the judgment is that an unregistered and unstamped document creating a right, title, or interest in immovable property is inadmissible in evidence under the Registration Act.

Short point falling for consideration is whether an unregistered and unstamped document termed "Inam Sasanam" is admissible in evidence.

2. This revision arises on the following facts: -

2. 1. The subject matter of the suit in O.S.No.477/1995 is R.S.No.136/1A and R.S.No.137/10A – Mela Perumpallam Village. Case of the Plaintiff is that one Ponnusami had conveyed the entire extent available in both Survey Numbers to one Sellappan on 20.12.1933. From that Sellappan, Plaintiffs father purchased the properties on 04.02.1934. In the family partition of Plaintiffs effected on 08.08.1980, Plaintiff was allotted the said property in R.S.No.136/1A and R.S.No.137/10A.

2. 2. The first Defendant is working as Village Administrative Officer. The second Defendant is his wife. Defendants claim to have purchased an extent of two cents in R.S.No.136/1A and three cents in R.S.No.137/10A from one Govindammal, wife of Ponnusami. Alleging that the first Defendant being Village Administrative Officer has maneuvered sub-division and committed trespass, Plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration and for delivery of possession.

3. During trial, Defendants produced document in question dated 05.09.1932, which is termed as "Inam Sasanam" by Ponnusami in favour of Kumarasami [who is stated to be grandfather of the first Defendant]. Under the document, Ponnusami is stated to have conveyed two cents in S.Nos.136/1 and three cents in S.No.137/1. The document is unregistered and unstamped. Referring to the recitals in the document, the learned District Munsif declined to admit the document observing that document unstamped and unregistered cannot be marked, nor can it be sent to the Revenue Divisional Officer for stamp duty.

3. Assailing the impugned Order, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that document was sought to be marked only for collateral purpose to show the nature of possession. It was further submitted that in 1932, value of 5 cents cannot be ascertained and it cannot be stated that value would be more than Rs.100/-, requiring registration. It was further submitted that the impugned Order declining to mark the document would cause serious prejudice to the Defendants in putting forth their defence.

4. Placing reliance upon 2000 (1) MLJ 1 [A.C. Lakshmipathy and another Vs. A.M. Chakrapani Reddiar and others], the learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the document, in respect of immovable property, being unstamped and unregistered, cannot be looked into for any purpose. It was further submitted that as the document creates a right in favour of Kumarasami, it requires registration.

5. Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act lays down, among other things that all non-testamentary instruments which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, any right, title or interest, must be compulsorily registered. Under Section 49 (c) of the Registration Act, a document which is required to be compulsorily registered under Section 17 shall not be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power.

6. It is well settled that the question whether the document is admissible in evidence or not, primarily depends upon the nature and contents of the document and also the facts and circumstances of each case. The nomenclature given to the document is not decisive. The main question to be considered is whether the document by itself creates or extinguishes right in immovable property worth more than Rs.100/-. In ascertaining true nature of the document, the recitals thereon and intention of the parties have to be borne in mind.

7. The question to be considered is whether the document in question is mere recital of fact or something which itself either creates or extinguishes a right or interest in the immovable property. Though the recitals are to the effect that Kumarasami obtained the Sale Deed from Govindammal or legal heirs of Ponnusami, the other recitals in