1 This Revision has been filed against the order dated 23.6.2009 passed in I.A. No. 1524 of 2008 in O.S. No. 576 of 2005 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Cuddalore.

2 The petitioner is the defendant in O.S. No. 576 of 2005 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Cuddalore. This is a suit for partition filed by the respondent. Pending the trial of the suit, the respondent/plaintiff produced unstamped and unregistered release deed dated 24.9.1991 executed by the respondent in favour of his sister by name Anusuya Amma along with an application to impound the same by referring to the Deputy Collector (Stamps) for Collection of Stamp Duty and Penalty. The petitioner has filed a memo praying the Court to sent the document to the Deputy Collector Stamps and the memo was dismissed by the Court as against which she preferred C.R.P. No. 2549 of 2007 before this Court, in which a direction was issued to her to file an application for the said purpose and consequently, the petitioner has filed the petition to impound the said document.

3 In the counter filed by the respondent in I.A. No. 1524 of 2008, it has been stated that it is false to allege that the respondent executed a release deed dated 24.9.1991 in favour of his sister. The petition is not in conformity with the order of the High Court and that the alleged release deed is attacked as forged document. When the execution of document itself is denied, it cannot be impounded and made admissible in evidence. A forged document cannot be impounded. Apart from that, a document which is compulsorily registrable document, the same cannot be subsequently validated by impounding and if it is a genuine document it should have been presented for registration within four months from the date of Its execution. Failure in this regard will result its invalidity and the petitioner had made a faint attempt to indirectly validating a forced document and that the petition is not maintainable both in facts and in law.

4 After hearing both sides, the learned Additional District Munsif, Cuddalore, dismissed the application observing that when the execution of document is not admitted by the respondent, the question of impounding will not arise and that by means of impounding a document, which requires compulsory registration, it cannot be subsequently validated. The said order is challenged before this Court in this revision.

5 The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. R. Gururaj has submitted that when the petitioner who produced a document comes forward praying this Court to impound it by referring the same to the authority, there is no legal impediment for the Court to impound the same.

6 The learned counsel for the respondent Mr. R. Subramanian contended that there is no scope for impounding the document. Since the execution of document itself is not admitted by the respondent and that when it is compulsorily registrable document, it need not be impounded.

7 The document in dispute is dated 24.9.1991, captioned as “Tamil”. By means of this document, it is stated that the respondent relinquished his right in the suit property in favour of his sister by getting Rs. 11,000/- from her. The relevant recital in the document reads as follows:

“Tamil”

While the above said recital is subjected to a careful scrutiny, it transpires that by virtue of this document, the respondent released his right In the property. If it is so, certainly, it would attract the provisions of Indianwhich mandates the document be registered compulsorily.

8 The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon a decision of Supreme Court in Chilakuri Gangulappa v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalle and Another

2001 (3) LW 113 : (2001) 2 MLJ 33(SC) wherein Their Lordships while dealing with Section 47 -A(4) of Stamp Act (II of 1899) held as follows:

“ It is clear from the first sub-section extracted above that the Court has a power to admit the document in evidence if the party producing t