Proper impounding and marking of documents, duty of the court to assess stamp duty, and the procedure for marking documents subject to objections.

This Civil Revision Petition is focussed as against the fair and decreetal order dated 30.08.2006 passed in I.A.No.189 of 2006 in O.S.No.104 of 2005 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Karaikudi.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Despite printing the name of the learned counsel for the respondents, no one appeared.

3. The parties are referred to herein according to the litigative status before the trial Court.

4. A resume of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition would run thus:

The plaintiffs two in number filed the suit in O.S.No.104 of 2005 as against the two defendants, who are the revisions petitioners herein, for declaration that the suit property belongs to them and for consequential injunction, based on the consent letter given by their father, the oral partition, which took place before Panchayatars, and which was subsequently got reduced in the form of the impugned document dated 23.02.1987.

5. The plaintiffs, in paragraph No.3 of their affidavit in I.A.No.189 of 2006 filed before the Principal District Munsif Court, Karaikudi, averred that the impugned document was filed along with the suit and when it was about to be marked, there was objection from the defendantss side on the ground of non-registration and non-stamping of it as per law; thereupon the said I.A.No.189 of 2006 was filed by the plaintiffs praying the Court to mark the document.

6. Counter was filed by the respondent/ defendants on the ground that the document should not be considered by the Court for marking as it was not a registered and stamped one and even for collateral purpose, it could not be relied on.

7. The trial Court ultimately allowed the petition. The last paragraph of the order of the trial Court is extracted here under for readily to be observed as to its apparent and obvious mistakes found therein:

"After analysing both side points raised by the both side learned counsel, it is found that the petitioner is not seeking the relief on the basis of the unregistered partition deed, but he wants to mark the above said documents for collateral purpose. Any have even though it is an unregistered document and at the same time the petitioner wants to mark the document for collateral purpose, but even for that collateral purpose, the stamp duty penality has to be paid since the above said document is an unregistered one. Under the above said circumstances, this court decides that the unregistered partition deed can be marked only on the payment of stamp duty penality.

In the result, on the payment of stamp duty penalty for the above said document, this petition will be allowed".

8. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the lower Court, the defendants filed this Civil Revision Petition on the grounds inter-alia thus:

The lower Court was wrong in holding that the impugned unregistered and unstamped document could be marked after the collection of stamp duty. The lower Court failed to note the plaintiffs attempt to circumvent Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act and Section 35 of the Stamp Act. The suit itself was filed for declaration based on the impugned document, which is inadmissible in evidence and it cannot be used for collateral purpose also. Accordingly, they prayed for setting aside the order of the trial Court.

9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants.

10. At the outset, I would like to place reliance on the following decisions of this Court:

(i) A.C.Lakshmipathy v. A.M.Chakrapani Reddiar & 5 Others reported in 2001-1-L.W.257.

(ii) Karuppannan v. Thavasiappan and Another reported in (2006)4 M.L.J.706.

(iii) R.Deivanai Ammal (Died) and others v. G.Meenakshi Ammal and others reported in 2005-1-L.W.343.

(iv) Amudha and others v. K.Jeyaraman reported in 2005-3-L.W.283.

11. The perusal of the aforesaid Judgments would make the point clear that when a document is filed and attempted to be marked, it has to be s