The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of proper stamping and compliance with Section 35 of the Stamp Act for the admissibility of an unregistered document, even for collateral purpose.

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 7. 2008 passed in IA.NO.408/2008 in OS.No.266/2006 by the learned Principal Sub Judge, Madurai.

2. The brief facts, which are essential for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition, are as follows:-

a. The Petitioner/Plaintiff had filed the above said suit for declaration of her title and permanent injunction restraining the Respondent from interfering with her possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The Respondent herein had also filed a suit in OS.No.441/2006 for declaration that he is the absolute owner of the suit property and for the consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the Petitioner from claiming any right under her and also from interfering with his possession. An Additional relief to declare the sale deed dated 10. 1991 registered in favour of the Petitioner as null and void and unenforceable in law had also been prayed for.

b. In the suit pending in OS.NO.266/2006, the Respondent had filed an application in IA.NO.408/2008 for reception of a document which is stated as "Deed of Delivery of possession" said to have been executed by one M.Chandra Mohan in favour of Alamelu, the mother of the Respondent. It is an unregistered document and the marking of the said document was objected to by the Petitioner, but the court below allowed the said application on the ground that it does not require to be registered. Aggrieved over the same, the Petitioner has filed this Civil Revision Petition.

3. Mr.V.Sitharanjandas, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the document produced by the Respondent is not only mere an endorsement evidencing receipt for payment of money, but also it is coupled with delivery of possession of immovable property and therefore, without ascertaining the nature of the document, its admissibility and relevancy, simply admitting the document, which is required to be compulsorily registered is unsustainable and the same is liable to be set aside.

4. To countenance his argument, the learned counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on the decision of this court rendered in the case of Dinakaran Vs. Venkatesan and others [2007-5-CTC-77], wherein this court after making a reference to various decisions held that no document shall be admitted in evidence, if it is not properly stamped and if it i0s already not stamped, then stamp duty should be paid with penalty as prescribed by the Authority. It further held that the court below should call upon the Defendant who want to rely on the document to pay the stamp duty and penalty and then admit the said document in evidence, whether it is for collateral purpose or otherwise after framing necessary issues at the later stage as guided by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Bipin Shantilal Panchal Vs. State of Gujaraj [1996-1-CTC-579].

5. The learned counsel for the Petitioner also placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this court rendered in the case of A.C.Lakshmipathy and another Vs. A.M.Chakrapani Reddiar and others [2001-1-MLJ-1], wherein it is held that an unregistered and unstamped document of family arrangement cannot be looked into by the court for any purpose.

6. Onthe other hand, Mr.M.Ponniah, the learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that even though a document, which is not properly stamped or registered is not admissible in evidence, the same can be looked into for collateral purpose to see the nature of possession of the party who relies upon the said document. He placed reliance on the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court rendered in the cases of K.A.Abdul Jaleel Vs. T.A.Shahida [2003-4-SCC-166] and Verendra Nath by P.A.Holder RR.Gupta Vs. Mohd.Jamil and others[2004-20-AIC-28-SC] in support of his contentions.

7. Therival submissions made on either side are actively considered.

8. It is now well settled that there is no prohibition under Section 49 of the Registration Act to receive an unregist