G. Chockalingam, J.

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 10.09.2012 in I.A. No. 1432 of 2012 in O.S. No. 250 of 2009 passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Tindivanam, in and by which, the application filed by the revision petitioner/second defendant to impound the unregistered sale deed, dated 05.09.1994 executed by Srinivasa Pillai in favour of the revision petitioner, for the purpose of paying stamp duty penalty, was dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/D2 contended that the lower Court failed to see that the above said unregistered sale deed, dated 05.09.1994 was sought to be impounded for paying stamp duty and penalty and the lower Court simply decided the case with regard to the admissibility of the document. He further contended that the Court below dismissed the application for impounding the document on the ground that the document cannot be received in evidence even for collateral purpose, unless it is duly stamped or penalty is paid under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act. He further submitted that the Court below failed to notice that the application for impounding the document was filed to pay the stamp duty and penalty, and the said application was erroneously dismissed by the lower Court. He therefore prayed that the Civil Revision Petition may be allowed. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/D2 relied on the following decisions:

"(a) 2009 (6) CTC 609 (Madurai Bench of Madras High Court) (Ramamoorthy v. M. Shanmugam):

"16. It is well settled that whether the document is admissible in evidence or not depends upon the nature and contents of the documents and also the facts and circumstances of each case. In the instant case, the First Respondent seeks to rely upon the document to show the nature of possession and in respect of boundaries.

17. Even though, under the document the property is said to have been conveyed, the document could still be looked into for the collateral purpose of ascertaining possession and also the boundaries of the property of the First Defendant. The impugned order directing the reception of the document does not suffer from any perversity, warranting interference and exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India...."

(b) 2010 (1) CTC 27 (Madras High Court) (Kalaivani @ Devasena v. J. Ramu):

"16. In Mayilu Ammal and others v. Renganathan, 2005 (5) CTC 424, this Court relying on the ratio laid down in Bondar Singh v. Nihal Singh, 2003 (2) CTC 635 (SC) : 2003 (4) SCC 161, held that unstamped and unregistered sale deed could be permitted to be marked for collateral purpose.

....

24. A perusal of the document dated 31.3.1973 filed in the typed set of papers would make it very clear that it allotted properties and assets to J. Ramu Chettiar, Minor Vivekanandan and minor Krishnan. No where it discloses that there was a partition previously and the same was being by the Trial Court, it requires registration. This document being an unregistered one can be looked into for collateral purpose only. It is well settled that even an unregistered document is admissible in evidence for collateral purpose provided it is adequately stamped under the Stamp act. If the document is both unstamped and unregistered, as the document in question here, it is no doubt true that it cannot be looked into for collateral purpose also. But such a document should not be thrown out at the threshold itself and an opportunity must be extended to the party who wants to mark the document on his side by directing him to pay the deficit stamp duty along with the penalty upto date, then the document could be admitted in evidence for collateral purpose. If the person does not pay the Court, then the document is to be impounded and sent to the Collector for taking action under the law."

(c) 2015 (1) CTC 359 (T. Chakrapani v. K. Adimoolam):

"12. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decisions o