Unregistered document to be marked in evidence.

The unsuccessful defendant in O.S.No.179 of 1994 on the file of the District Munsif, Polur has preferred the revision aggrieved against the orders passed in I.A.No.234 of 1998 dated 24.8.1998.

2. Thecase in brief is as follows:

The plaintiff filed an application under Sec.151, C.P.C., to condone the delay in filing the Koorchit dated 20.8.1951 and receive the same in the evidence. The defendant filed a counter and contended that the Koorchit sought to be marked is inadmissible for want of registration. According to the pleadings, the plaintiff-temple derived title to the property only under the Koorchit, but the same was not produced at an earlier date. Even in the course of evidence, the plaintiff has not stated about the Koorchit. There are several schedules of property in the Koorchit and if the petitioner wants to have the document exhibited in evidence, the petitioner must have paid stamp duty penalty for the entire instrument. After hearing the parties, the learned District Munsif allowed the application and aggrieved against this, the present revision petition has been filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

4. The point that arise for consideration is whether the order passed by the Court below is proper and correct?

5. Point: The plaintiff filed a suit for delivery of possession of the property to the plaintiff-temple and also to direct the defendant to render account from the date of suit till delivery of possession and other reliefs. The plaintiff contended that one Narayanasami Naicker has given the suit property to the temple. There was already a partition in the family of Sabapathy Naicker in the year 1951 and the Koorchit has traced out now only. Because of that only, it could not be filed at earlier point of time and as such at the time of examination of Narayanasami Naicker as a witness, the Koorchit has to be marked in evidence.

6. The learned counsel for revision petitioner/ defendant contended that this Koorchit dated 20.8.1951 was not written on a properly valued stamp paper and it was not registered. The document is in admissible in evidence. The learned District Munsif erred in holding that this document was marked in evidence in a similar suit in O.S.No.246 of 1989. Under Sec.49 of Registration Act when the document ought to be registered has not been registered, it cannot be received in evidence except for collateral purposes. Now according to the plaintiff, the property was given to the temple under this document and as the document is not registered, it cannot be marked. It can be admitted in evidence only on payment of stamp duty and as such the order passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent/ plaintiff contended that the Koorchit can be admitted in evidence to prove the collateral purposes. The properties were allotted to one Sabapathy Naicker in the family partition in 1951 and later he in turn had conveyed this property to the suit temple. The plaintiff has given valid and sound reasons for not filing the petition at an earlier point of time for reception of the document. The learned counsel for the plaintiff stated that the very same document has already been marked in a separate suit in O.S.No.246 of 1989 and as the document was not filed in the present case at an earlier point of time, cost of Rs.200 was also imposed by the Court below.

8. Thelearned counsel for the revision petitioner also filed a copy of the certificate to show that the document has been impounded under Sec.45-A of the Indian Stamp Act and the stamp duty and penalty had also been collected earlier. The production of this document clearly indicated that the necessary stamp duty has already been paid and under the circumstances, there is no force in the objection raised by the defendant. The Koorchit has come into existence in the year 1951 and now this document has been relied (2001) 2 MLJ 507 at 509 upon for collateral purposes. Considering the f