This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order made in E.A.No.319 of 2014 in E.A.No.277 of 2010 in E.P. .... of 2010 in O.S.No.261 of 1991, on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Cuddalore, dated 20.08.2014.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the second petitioner, namely, Mr. Narayanan is the original decree holder in O.S.No.261 of 1991, dated 30.06.1993, on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Cuddalore. Originally, the suit in O.S.No.261 of 1991 was filed by the father of the second petitioner, namely, Pramasivam, against one Arumugam, S/o Manickam, Subramaniam, Ganesan, Ramalingam, Sons of Arumugam seeking the approval from the defendants and claiming the amount. The said suit was dismissed. Later on, an appeal in A.S.No.204 of 1993 was filed by the father of the second petitioner, namely, Mr. Paramasivam, before the I Additional Subordinate Court, Cuddalore and the same was decreed in favour of the said Paramasivam.

3. After the decree, the second petitioner has made over the decree passed in A.S.No.204 of 1993, in favour of this respondent, namely, Mathimugam. Thereafter, the respondent Mathimugam has filed E.P. ... of 2010 along with E.A.No.277 of 2010 before the Principal District Munsif, Cuddalore, against these petitioners to recognize him as an assignee of the decree for possession obtained by the first petitioner herein on the strength of alleged assignment stated to have been issued by the second petitioner herein on 01.06.2010 in favour of this respondent.

4. Though the said application was filed in E.A.No.277 of 2010 and summons were served on these petitioners, who are the respondents in the said E.A.No.277 of 2010 and they have engaged counsel, but they are not made any objection for allowing the E.A.No.277 of 2010.

5. Considering the respondent' case, the learned Principal District Munsif, Cuddalore, allowed the said application on 27.06.2014. The respondent/assignee decree holder has purchased the above decree on 01.06.2010 and the said made over decree has been marked in the above E.A as Ex.P.1 and the same was accepted by the Execution Court.

6. The respondent/assignee decree holder was examined himself as P.W.1 and the said assignment dated 01.06.2010 was marked as Ex.P.1 in E.A.No.277 of 2010. Therefore, this petitioners were filed the present E.A.No.319 of 2014 with a prayer to reject the Ex.A.1, namely, the alleged assignment instrument dated 01.06.2010 on the ground that the said instrument is inadmissible and invalid in view of the legal embargo contemplated under Section 17 and 49 of the Registration Act 1908 and consequently praying to dismiss the E.A.No.277 of 2010.

7. The petitioner stated that as per Ex.P.1 marked in E.A.No. 227 of 2010, the alleged assignment recites states as follows:-

xxx xxx xxx

Therefore, this petitioners filed the above said application stating that the said so called Ex.P.1 operates to create and declare right, title and interest in the Decree mentioned property for a value of Rs.3,60,000/-. Hence, the alleged assignment must be compulsorily registered by virtue of Section 17 of Indian Registration Act. The petitioners also come forward by saying that the said Ex.P.1 is unregistered and unstamped. Hence, despite the legal embargo envisaged under Section 49 of the Act, the document was admitted in evidence and Exhibited as P.1

8. The petitioners also stated that though the question relating to stamp duty may not be raised after marking of the document, yet the question of want of registration of a document can be raised at any stage of the proceeding including at appellate stage or in revision, therefore, in view of Section 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, 19 and 49, Ex.P.1 is quite inadmissible and has no legal sanctity which cannot be looked into for any purpose at all and hence, he prayed the Execution Court to reject Ex.P.1 dated 01.06.2010.

9. The case of the respondent is that E.A.No.319 of 2014 filed by the petitioner is not at all mai