The legal requirement of registration under the Registration Act for documents affecting property rights and the inapplicability of legal precedents to specific factual scenarios.

1. This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 11.11.2009 passed by the District Munsif, Panruti, in O.S. No. 151 of 2009.

2. The petitioners are the defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 151 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif, Panruti. Respondents 1 to 4 herein have filed the suit for declaration of title and for permanent injunction. The averments in the plaint are that their grandfather-Venupillai had been in possession and enjoyment of the property for more than 100 years continuously and after his death, his son Pondurangan, who is the father of the plaintiffs, enjoyed the property and therefore, they are the owners of the suit property. The petitioners filed their written statement contending that the said Venupillai had four sons and they have entered into an oral partition and after few years, they have reduced the oral partition into writing called ‘Partition List’, on 21.9.1974. So the petitioners contended that as per the partition, they are entitled to share in the suit property.

3. During trial, the defendants produced the Partition List, dated 21.9.1974. The same was objected by the respondents on the ground that it is an unregistered document and cannot be relied on for any purpose. The learned District Munsif, Panruti, held that the document requires registration under the Registration Act, and since it is an unregistered document, it cannot be accepted. Due to the non-registration, the document was rejected by the learned District Munsif. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have filed the above revision.

4. Heard Mr. R. Gururaj, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S. Kinston Jerold, the learned counsel for the respondents.

5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Partition List dated 21.9.1974 is only a record of past events and therefore, it does not require registration. The learned counsel further submitted that even if the document requires registration, the Court has to impound the unregistered document and send it to the District Collector for collection of stamp duty and only after payment of stamp duty and penalty, the question of marking the document would arise. The learned counsel also contended that the unregistered document is admissible in evidence for collateral purpose. Therefore, the order of the Court below rejecting the document, is not sustainable in law. The learned counsel relies on the judgments of the Honourable Apex Court as well as this Court reported in (i) AIR 1960 SC 335 – Mst. Rukhmabai vs. Lala Laxminarayan and others (ii) 2001-3-L.W.113 (S.C.) – Chilakuri Gangulappa v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Mandanpalle and another, (iii) (2003) 4 SCC 161 – Bondar Singh and Others v. Nihal Singh and Others and (iv) AIR 2001 Madras 135 – A.C. Lakshmipathy and another v. A.M. Chakrapani Reddiar and others and (v) 2013-3-L.W.381 - The Chairman & Managing Trustee Krishnaswamy Educational Trust rep. by N.A.K. Balakrishnan v. Tmt. C.V. Rajeswari Ammal (Deceased) & others.

6. The Partition List dated 21.9.1974 has been enclosed in the typed set of papers, which does not show that there was earlier partition between the father of the plaintiffs and the father of the defendants, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners and it was subsequently reduced into writing. On the other hand, it is stated as if the properties were partitioned on the date of the document. So, the contention of the petitioners that there was partition effected earlier and it was reduced into writing on 21.9.1974 does not merit acceptance.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in AIR 2001 Madras 135 – A.C. Lakshmipathy and another v. A.M. Chakrapani Reddiar and others for the proposition that if oral agreement was already made and when it was reduced into writing subsequently, the same need not be registered and stamp duty need not be paid. The said judgment is not