Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 5166
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESAN
S. Manikanda Moorthy
Versus
S. Krishna Moorthy & Others
CRP(PD)Nos.758 & 759/2009 MP.No.1/2009
Decided on: 01-12-2009
For the Petitioner:V. Chandrasekar, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Ms. P. Malini, Advocate.
The admissibility of unregistered documents for collateral purposes is subject to compliance with stamp duty requirements as per Section 49 of the Registration Act and Section 35 of the Stamp Act.
Headnote:
Stamp Duty - Family Arrangement - Section 49 of the Registration Act - Section 35 of the Stamp Act - [Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, Section 35 of the Stamp Act, 1899]
Fact of the Case:
The 1st Defendant filed Civil Revision Petitions against the order passed in a suit for partition and declaration. The 1st Respondent sought to recall himself and mark an unregistered deed of family arrangement as a document on his side during the trial. The 1st Defendant resisted, arguing that the document is inadmissible.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the impugned order, citing the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Avinash Kumar Chauhan Vs. Vijay Krishna Mishra, which held that an unregistered document can be received in evidence for a collateral purpose if duly stamped or compliant with Section 35 of the Stamp Act.
Issues: Admissibility of unregistered deed of family arrangement as evidence, competence of witness to speak about the document, and compliance with stamp duty requirements.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court, emphasizing the statutory obligation to impound a document, the prohibition of admitting unstamped documents, and the requirements of Section 49 of the Registration Act and Section 35 of the Stamp Act.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petitions were dismissed, and the court permitted the 1st Respondent to produce the document and recall the witness, with the right for the 1st Defendant to raise objections regarding proof and relevancy of the documents at the stage of arguments.
These Civil Revision Petitions are filed by the 1st Defendant against the order passed in IA.NOs.357 & 358/2009 in OS.No.299/2007 by the learned District Munsif, Tirumangalam dated 24. 2009.
2. The 1st Respondent/Plaintiff had filed the above said suit for partition and for declaration that the Will and settlement deeds said to have been executed by the father of the Respondents is not binding on him and also for permanent injunction restraining the Petitioner/1st Defendant from in any way encumbering the suit properties. The Petitioner resisted the suit refuting the allegations made in the plaint by filing a Written Statement.
3. The suit had been taken up for trial and during the adduction of evidence of the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff, the 1st Respondent had filed an application in IA.NO.357/2009 to recall himself and another application in IA.NO.358/2008 seeking permission to mark an unregistered deed of family arrangement dated 28. 1974 as a document on his side. According to the 1st Respondent, the suit properties are the ancestral properties left by his father and there was a family arrangement between his father and his brothers where under the suit properties were made liable for division.
4. The Petitioner resisted the said applications very strongly on the ground that the said document is inadmissible in evidence and PW.1 is not a competent witness to speak about the document, as he had no personal knowledge of the said document. It was also contended that the said unregistered deed of family arrangement cannot be looked into for any purpose, as it is an unregistered and unstamped document.
5. Mr.V.Chandrasekar, the learned counsel for the Petitioner reiterated the above said contentions and submitted that there was no explanation whatsoever from the 1st Respondent for not producing the documents at the earliest occasion either before the trial or at the time of examination of the witnesses on his side.
6. On the other hand, Ms.P.Malini, the learned counsel for the Respondents supported the impugned order of the court below and relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court rendered in the case of Avinash Kumar Chauhan Vs. Vijay Krishna Mishra [2009-3-MLJ-409-SC} wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has held that under Section 49 of the Registration Act, there is no prohibition to receive an unregistered document in evidence for collateral purpose, provided that the document so tendered in evidence should be duly stamped or comply with the requirements of Section 35 of the Stamp Act. It is held that if the document is not stamped, it can be received only if duty and penalty are paid in accordance with Section 35 of the Stamp Act.
7. TheRatio decidendi laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court is given below:-
"I. Section 33 of the Stamp Act, 1899 casts a statutory obligation on all the authorities to impound a document. The Court being an Authority to receive a document in evidence is bound to give effect thereto.
II.Section 35 of the Stamp Act, 1899 categorically provides that an unstamped document shall not be admitted for any purpose whatsoever. If all purposes for which the document is sought to be brought in evidence are excluded, there is no reason as to how the document would be admissible for collateral purposes.
III. There is no prohibition under Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 to receive an unregistered document in evidence for collateral purpose. But, the document so tendered should be duly stamped or should comply with the requirement of Section 35 of the Stamp Act, if not stamped as a document cannot be received in evidence even for collateral purpose unless it is duly stamped or duty and penalty are paid under Section 35 of the Stamp Act."
8. It is now well settled that there is no prohibition under Section 49 of the Registration Act to receive an unregistered document in evidence for collateral purpose. But, the document so tendered should be duly stamped or should compl
