unregistered but stamped partition deed can be looked in to for collateral purposes.

1. First defendant in O.S.No.57 of 1996 on the file of Prl. Subordinate Judge, Virudhachalam, aggrieved by the order in I.A.No.592 of 2000 dated 12.07.2000, has filed the above revision.

2. The respondents 1 to 4 herein filed civil suit. in O.S.No. 57 of 1996 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Virudhachalam for partition and separate, possession. The first respondent herein is the brother of the petitioner's wife and respondents 2 to 4 are his children. The petitioner herein has filed a written statement and resisted the suit inter alia contending that the suit items had already been apportioned and there is no necessary for the suit. The plaintiffs have let in evidence. When the petitioner herein - first defendant was in the witness box filed a document purported to be a partition deed dated 29.8.1978, this was objected by the plaintiffs that it is an unregistered document and could not be admitted. It is the case of the petitioner that the document could not be registered, since it is only a record of past and present transaction and though not registered, required stamp duty has been paid. It is also stated that it could be used for collateral purpose. By the impugned order dated 12.7.2000, the learned Subordinate Judge refused permission to file the said document,, against which the, petitioner filed the above revision.

3. In spite of service of notice on all the respondents, none of them have chosen to contest the above revision by engaging a counsel.

4. Heard Mr. N. Mani Narayanan, learned counsel for petitioner.

5. Theonly point for consideration is, whether the unregistered partition schedule dated 29.8.1978 is admissible in evidence and the Court below is right in rejecting the said document and dismissing I.A.No.592 of 2000?

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has produced xerox copy of partition schedule dated 29.8.1978. It is the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner that though the said document has not been registered as per the provisions of the Registration Act, since necessary stamp duty and the penalty have been remitted under Indian Stamp Act, the said document cannot be relied on to prove the factum of partition, but the same may be used for collateral purpose, namely to prove possession of the properties in question. The letter of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chidambaram in K.Dis.No.7308/96 dated 29.10.1996 addressed to the petitioner K. Pattabiraman clearly show that the document dated 29.08.1978 have fully been stamped and validated. By pointing out the above fact that the required stamp duty and penalty have been paid under the Stamp Act, the said document may be considered for a limited purpose. There is no dispute that it is well established proposition that unregistered document cannot be a basis for proving title, however the same can be looked into for deciding nature and character of possession.

7. Mr. Mani Narayanan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has very much relied on the decision of mine in the case of M.K. Narayanan & others v. The State of Tamil Nadu & another, 2000 (2) CTC 230 : 2000 (2) T.L.N. J. 1 and the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of reported in A.C. Lakshmipathy v. A.M. Chakrapani Reddiar, 2001 (2) CTC 112 : 2000 (2) T.L.N.J. 315. After referring the earlier decisions of this Court as well as relevant provisions from the Registration Act, in M.K. Narayanan & others v. The State of Tamil Nadu & another, 2000 (2) CTC 230 :2000 (2) T.L.N. J. 1,I have already held that the unregistered document can be looked into for the purpose of finding of any division in status or not. In the case of Booraswami v. Rajakannu 1978 (1) M.L.J. 248, the Division Bench of this Court has held that unregistered partition deed can be looked into for the purpose of finding whether there was a division in status or not. This fact of unregistered partition deed or family arrangement has been considered elaborately in the latest Division