The main legal point established in the judgment is that unstamped and unregistered documents cannot be admitted in evidence, except for collateral purposes, and the principle of estoppel applies when a party waives the right to challenge a document.

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decretal order dated 12. 2006 made in I.A.No: 276 of 2006 in O.S.No. 42 of 2001 by the learned District Munsif Court, Thirukalukundram dismissing the I.A., filed by the plaintiff under Order 13 Rule 3 CPC for rejection of unregistered Partition Deed dated 23. 1974 filed by the defendant No.3 on the ground that the said document is inadmissible in evidence.

2. The suit has been filed by the revision petitioner/plaintiff for declaration, partition and also for incidental reliefs as against the respondents/defendants. During trial, the third defendant had filed a document, namely attested photo copy of partition deed dated 23. 1974 as evidence though which he is claiming right and title over the one forth share of suit A and B schedule mentioned properties. According to the plaintiff, the alleged partition deed dated 23. 1974 is an unstamped written paper, not a registered document as required under Section 17 of the Registration Act and it is inadmissible under Section 49 of the Registration Act. Therefore the said document cannot be received in evidence. In fact the said document is a forged document wherein the plaintiff has not put his signature and therefore it does not bind on his right over his B Schedule property. Hence the said document has to be rejected as inadmissible to be received in evidence.

.3. The third defendant resisted the said application by fling a counter. The learned District Munsif, Thirukalukundram, on a consideration of the pleadings and submissions of the learned counsel appeared on either side, dismissed the said application holding that the said document can be marked for collateral purpose and its legal validity can be decided at the time of final disposal of the suit and therefore the said document can be marked. Further, the plaintiff having filed the suit for declaration to declare the said document as null and void, he cannot take out the application to reject the very same document as inadmissible. Further, for the said document, sufficient stamp duty with penalty has been paid in to court deposit and as against which no revision has been preferred by the plaintiff and therefore, the Interlocutory Application is filed only to prolong the litigation. Aggrieved of the same, the present revision is filed by the plaintiff.

.4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that any unstamped and unregistered document which needs registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act cannot be looked into even for collateral purpose or can be used in any legal proceedings. In support of his contention the learned counsel relied on the following decisions:-

.i) 2003 (3) MLJ 45

(Balakrishnan & another Vs. Chandrasekharan)

ii) 2006 (1) TLNJ (Civil) 595

(Lingappa Gounder Vs. Palanisamy and others)

iii) 2005 (2) CTC 385

(Amudha and others Vs. K.Jeyaraman and another)

iv) 2006 (2) LW 437

(Pyarijan Vs.Puttapa & another)

v) 2005 (1) LW 343 (DB)

R.Deivanai Ammal (died) & Anr Vs. G.Meenakshi Ammal and others

5. In 2003 (3) MLJ 45 (Balakrishnan & another Vs. Chandrasekharan), this court held that 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 Indian Stamps Act and Indian Registration Act. But in the said decision it has been observed that if the family arrangement is stamped, but not registered, it can be looked into for collateral purposes.

6. In 2006 (1) TLNJ (Civil) 595 (Lingappa Gounder Vs. Palanisamy and others) this court again held that interest on immovable properties for more than Rs.100/= are transferable only through a registered document as per Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act.

7. In 2005 (2) CTC 385 (Amudha and others Vs. K.Jeyaraman and another) this court held that even the suit property claimed to be purchas