The main legal point established is that unregistered documents can only be used for collateral purpose as per section 49 of the Registration Act, while unstamped documents cannot be admitted in evidence under section 35 of the Stamp Act.

1. The defendant is the revision petitioner. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.894 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Erode, for recovery of possession and for arrears of rent and during the examination of PW1, he marked Ex.A2, lease deed, which is admittedly not registered and therefore, an application was filed by the petitioner in I.A.No.1169 of 2011 to reject Ex.A2 on the ground that the said document was not duly stamped and not registered and that application was dismissed and aggrieved by the same, this revision filed.

2. Mr. M. Guruprasad, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that admittedly, Ex.A2, lease deed was for a period of more than one year and it was not duly stamped and unregistered and therefore, the Court below ought not to have marked the document as Ex.A2 and therefore, an application was filed to reject the document and the Court below having held that Ex.A2 has to be rejected on the ground that it was not duly stamped and unregistered one, erred in holding that having regard to the fact that the period mentioned in the lease deed was for a period of five years and that the period expired even before the filing of the suit and therefore, the document need not be rejected and the rejection of the petition by the Court below on that ground is erroneous and is liable to be set aside. He also relied upon the following judgments in support of his contention.

01. 2004(4) CTC 226, in the case of Smt. Dayamathi Bai vs. Sri. K.M. Shaffi.

02. 2000(5) Supreme 172, in the case of Anthony vs. KC Ittoop and Sons & others.

03. (2001) 3 SCC 1, in the case of Bipin Shantilal Panchal vs. State of Gujarat and another.

04. 2006 (5) CTC 681, in the case of Duraisami Naidu and others vs. C. Ramakrishnan and others.

05. 2011(1)MWN (Civil) 297, in the case of Ammamuthu Ammal (Died) and four others vs. Devaraj and 10 others; and

06. 2011(2)MWN (Civil) 594, in the case of Vasantha Ammal vs. Gunasekaran.

3. On the other hand, Mr. S. Chandrasekaran, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that if any document is not registered, the same can be received for collateral purpose and therefore, even assuming that Ex.A2 was an unregistered, the same can be received in evidence for collateral purpose as per section 49 of the Registration Act and therefore, the document cannot be rejected. He further submitted that the document Ex.A2 cannot also be rejected on the ground that it was not duly stamped as no objection was raised by the revision petitioner when the document was marked and therefore, under section 36 of the Stamp Act, objection cannot be raised after the document was allowed to be marked. He also relied upon the following decisions in support of his contention.

01. 1997(2) CTC 517, in the case of Kousalya Ammal vs. Valliammai Ammal and another.

02. Order made in CRP(PD)No.4035 of 2007, dated 28.09.2010 [K. Munirathinam Naidu vs. G. Balaraman]; and

03. Order made in CRP(PD)No.1723 of 2009, dated 18.01.2010 [Nithyanandam vs. Poornachandran & 3 others]

4. Admittedly, Ex.A2 is a lease deed for a period of five years and therefore, as per section 17 of the Registration Act, the said document is compulsorily registrable. Therefore, when a document, which is compulsorily registrable is not registered, that document cannot be looked into to prove the contents of the lease and as per section 49 of the Registration Act, such document can be received in evidence for collateral purpose. Therefore, even though, the document was marked as Ex.A2, having regard to the provision of sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, the said document can be looked into only for collateral purpose as the document is not a registered document.

5. However, the position under the Stamp Act is entirely different. Under section 35 of the Stamp Act, no instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any person having by law or consent of parties authorit