The judgment emphasizes the admissibility of unregistered documents for collateral purposes and the requirement for payment of deficit stamp duty and penalty for admitting such documents in evidence.

The above Civil Revision Petitions are filed against the Order dated 16. 2007 passed in I.A. No.1080 of 2006 and I.A. No. 119 of 2007 in O.S. No. 86 of 2003 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Panruti.

2. The defendant in O.S. No. 86 of 2003 is the revision petitioner in both the petitions.

3. The respondent herein/plaintiff filed O.S.No. 86 of 2003 for a declaration to declare the plaintiffs title over the suit property and also for a consequential injunction restraining the defendant from disturbing the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

4. During trial, the revision petitioner/defendant filed two applications i.e. I.A.No. 1080 of 2006 to condone the delay to receive the documents and I.A.No. 119 of 2007 to send the documents sought to be received in I.A.No. 1080 of 2006 to the District Stamp Officer, Cuddalore to determine the stamp duty and penalty, I.A.No. 1080 of 2006 was not opposed by the respondent/plaintiff and no counter affidavit was filed by him. Insofar as I.A. No. 119 of 2007 is concerned, the respondent/plaintiff has not only filed a counter, but, also made an endorsement that the petition could be allowed on payment of cost. But the trial Court by order dated 16. 2007 dismissed both the applications and aggrieved by the same, the above revision petitions have been filed by the defendant in the suit.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and no one appeared on behalf of the respondent even though service was completed on 19. 2007 and 110. 2007 in C.R.P. (PD) No. 2417 of 2007 and 110. 2007 in C.R.P. PD. No. 2418 of 2007. I have also gone through the documents and judgments filed in support of his submission.

6. It is not in dispute that the revision petitioner/defendant wanted to file an unregistered release deed dated 27. 1993 and as there was a delay in filing the same and as the suit itself was in a part-heard stage, he filed I.A. No. 1080 of 2006 to condone the delay and to receive the document dated 27. 1993. He further filed another application in I.A.No. 119 of 2007 to send the document to the Officer concerned to determine its stamp duty and penalty. The trial Court found fault with the revision petitioner for filing I.A.No. 1080 of 2006 at a belated stage and refused to received the document. Consequently, the trial Court dismissed I.A.No. 119 of 2007 also.

7. It is settled a law that even an unregistered document could be admitted for collateral purposes, if the party is willing to pay the deficit stamp duty and penalty Chellammal v. Meenakshi (2002) 3 L.W. 543.

8. Even an unregistered sale deed which is not admissible in evidence can be looked into for collateral purposes such as to see the is nature of possession of party over suit property Bondar Singh and others v. Nihal Singh and Others AIR 2003 SC 1905: (2003) 4 SCC 161: (2003) 2 MLJ 122.

9. In Chilakuri Ganugulappa v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalle and Another AIR 2001 SC 1321: (2001) 4 SCC 197 (2001) 2 MLJ 33, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the law, when the Courts are face with applications to receive unregistered and insufficiently stamped documents. According to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Civil Court has power to admit the unregistered document in evidence, if the party producing the same would pay the stamp duty together with penalty amounting to ten times the deficiency of the stamp duty. The procedure to be followed in this regard has been narrated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above decision which is as follows at p. 35 of MLJ.

“12. It is clear from the first sub-section extracted above that the Court has the power to admit the document in evidence if the party producing the same would pay the stamp duty together with a penalty amounting to ten times the deficiency of the stamp duty. When the Court chooses to admit the document on compliance with such condition the Court need forward only a copy of the m>> document to the Colle