Documents creating or extinguishing rights must be properly stamped and registered to be admissible in evidence.

1. The following are the averments contained in I.A.No.167/2010 filed in O.S.No.29 of 2007:

The 1st petitioner and the 1st respondent have prepared and signed two family arrangement dated 21.09.2000 and 29.09.2000 for some items of the suit properties in Rs.10/- stamp papers, in the presence of auspicious of the Karaikudi Varthaga Nadar Uravumurai, through its office bearers and hence the said transactions are not in the nature of conveyance in the present or in the future, that no right has been created or relinquished in the said documents, that the said documents are only the notes of past transaction between the parties but the same are objected to by the respondents that they are inadmissible in evidence, that the do not create or extinguish any right in the properties mentioned there by itself, that the same are admissible in evidence, that they are not hit by want of registration under Section 17 and 49 of the Registration Act and that if such records are not received into evidence, the petitioners would be put to loss and hardships and hence the same may be received and marked as Exhibits.

2. In the written statement filed by the defendants, it is averred as follows:

2. (a) The averments in the petition are false and baseless, that the document bearing Sl.No.11102 dated 29.09.2000 is a forged one and the signature found in the same is not of this respondent, that the said document has been filed in the intervening petition in Crl.O.P.No.2366 of 2007 by the 1st petitioner in order to escape from the criminal action, that it is admissible in evidence for want of registration and stamp duty under the stamp act and registration Act.

2. (b) The document bearing Sl.No.11103 dated 21.09.2000 which are blank stamp papers with signatures of this respondent, was handed over by the respondent to Karaikudi Varthaga Nadar Uravumurai were fabricated as such document. The recitals of the said document show that the right has been created under the said document in favour of the plaintiff No.1/defendantNo.1, that the recitals in the said document that hereafter there is no either relationship or other connections with the property concerned, would clearly establish the factum of relinquishment in the immovable property and hence the above said document under which the right is created or extinguished is not a notes of record of past transaction as alleged, that the said documents which are for want of sufficient stamps and registration are inadmissible in evidence, that the same cannot be marked in evidence as exhibits of the defendants and that the same may be dismissed with costs.

3. After analysing the materials on record, the learned District Judge, Sivaganga has dismissed the application and observed that the documents are inadmissible in evidence since there is insufficient of payment of stamp duty and lack of registration. Hence the revision.

4. Point for consideration:

Whether the documents produced by the petitioners can be received for evidence?

Point

5. Respondents 1 to 4 are the plaintiffs filed suit for partition. When the suit was part-heard stage, the petitioners who are defendants 1 to 5 came forward, filing the application praying the Court to receive two documents which are unregistered family arrangements in evidence on their side. For better appreciation of the matter, it is profitable to extract the contents of both the documents which are in vernacular language. They are dated 29.9.2000 and 21.9.2000 respectively. Both the documents have been reduced to writing in separate stamp papers to the value of Rs.10/- each. Both the stamp papers are dated 18.9.2000 with serial Nos.11102 and 11103 respectively.

6. The contents contained in Stamp Paper Sl.No.11102 reportedly written on 29.9.2000 is as follows:

“Tamil”

7. The contents found in Stamp Paper Sl.No.11103 written on 21.9.2000 is as under:

“Tamil”

8. The plaintiffs have categorically denied the signatures found in the first document. They also pleaded i