The main legal point established is that an unregistered document could be admitted in evidence for collateral purpose only if adequately stamped, and an opportunity must be extended to the party to pay the deficit stamp duty along with the penalty.

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Order dated 14. 2005 made in O.S.No.13 of 2004 on the file of the District Judge, Perambalur.

2. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.13 of 2004 are the revision petitioner herein.

3. O.S.No.13 of 2004 has been filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants/respondents herein for passing a preliminary decree declaring that the plaintiffs are entitled to 5/6th share in ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties, then pass a final decree directing division of ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties, by metes and bounds and allot separate properties for the plaintiffs 5/6th share in ‘A’ schedule and 5/18th share in ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties and for rendition of accounts. Written statement was filed by the first defendant as the first defendant was sole and exclusive owner of the properties described in Plaint ‘A’ and ‘C’ schedule properties. Further, it was a case of the first defendant that he only purchased this properties with his own funds. Thus, the Suit was hotly contested. During the trial of the Suit, a document styled as memo of partial Partition in the Hindu undivided family of J. Ramu Chettiyar, Ariyalur dated 33. 1973 was sought to be marked through P.W.1. In the Plaint, it was contended that there was a Partial Partition in March 1973, in which one Mr. Krishnan who was one other than the husband of the first plaintiff and father of the second plaintiff was allotted ‘A’ schedule properties which are situated in Ariyalur town and at the time of partial partition, the said Krishnan was minor. After the partial partition, the said Krishnan was minor. After the partial partition was effected, a partial partition list dated 33. 1973 was prepared and the first defendant/first respondent herein also signed on behalf of his then minor sons which included Krishnan as well as the third defendant. Further, the said partial partition was acted upon and the same was also sent to numerous Government departments. When this document was sought to be marked, the same was objected to by the first defendant by filing a Memo objecting to the said marking of the said partition list on the ground that it is inadmissible in evidence. The learned judge allowed the memo filed by the first defendant by an order dated 14. 2005. Challenging the same, the plaintiffs have filed the above Revision Petition before this Court.

4. This Court on 19. 2005 granted stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.13 of 2004 and the same is in force till date.

5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/plaintiffs and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and the learned counsel for the respondents 5 and 6. I have also gone through the documents available on record including the counter affidavit filed on behalf of 5th and 6th respondents.

6. The Suit is one for partition filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs and P.W.1 was examined on 4. 2005. While being examined in chief, the plaintiffs wanted to mark the document styled as “partial partition list” dated 33. 1973. The said making of the document was objected to by the learned counsel appearing for the defendants/respondents. It was contended by the plaintiff that 33. 1973 document was a family partition list evidencing a partial partition already taken place between the coparceners and this document has not created any title and therefore, it does not require any registration and consequently, it is admissible in evidence. But on the objection raised by the defendants, the Trial Court held that there is no mention in the document viz., 33. 1973 about any prior partial partition held in the family and it would refer to preparation of partition list only. Therefore, holding that there is no iota of evidence in the document to infer a prior partial partition in the family of Ramu Chettiyar before 33. 1973 the Trial Court held that this document is inadmissible in evidence.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit