The revision petitioners are the legal heirs of one A.Raja Bhoopathi, who instituted the suit for partition against his brother who is the respondent herein. Pending suit, Raja Bhoopathi died and the revision petitioners were impleaded as plaintiffs.

2. When the suit was posted for trial, the revision petitioners sought leave of the Court to mark photocopy of a document alleged to have been executed by the parties concerned on 01.03.2007. The said document which carries the caption 'family arrangement', is an unregistered and under- stamped, besides being a photocopy and not original.

3. The Trial Court taking note of these three factors, has declined the request of the revision petitioners to admit the said document. Aggrieved by it, the present revision petition is filed.

4. According to the revision petitioners, the original of the said document was with Annamalai Chettiyar, who is the father of Late A.Raja Bhoopathi and A.Vivekanandan. After his demise, the respondent herein, who was taking care of Raja Bhoopathi, is in possession of the original document and therefore, photocopy of it was sought to be marked, which is permissible under Section 65(a) of the Indian Evidence Act.

5. The further case of the revision petitioner is that though the document carries the caption as 'family arrangement', it is only a ''memorandum of understanding'' reached between the members of the family and therefore, registration of that document is not a mandatory requirement. Further, the said document neither creates nor declares nor assigns nor limits or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent. Therefore, Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act is not attracted. However, the lower Court erred in dismissing the application to receive the document and mark it as exhibit on the side of the plaintiffs.

6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the suit is for partition, in which, the document sought to be marked has already been referred in the pleadings as well as shown as document No.1 in the list of documents annexed to the plaint.

7. While marking the document through the witness, the Court objected for marking of secondary evidence. Hence, notice was issued to the respondent/defendant to produce the original, since he is in custody of the original document. However, the respondent denied the very existence of such document, which has forced the plaintiffs to mark photocopy.

8. The Trial Court instead of admitting the document, has wrongly declined the request on the ground that the document creates rights in the immovable properties to the parties and it is not properly stamped, hence, barred under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act.

9. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that even if the document is required registration and not adequately stamped, the Court can only direct the impounding of the document as contemplated under Section 38 of the Indian Stamp Act, requiring the Collector to determine the stamp duty by sending the document for such purpose. Instead of following the procedure contemplated under Section 38 of the Indian Stamp Act, the Trial Court has illegally rejected the document.

10. The grounds raised in the revision petition as well as the documents annexed in the typed set perused.

11. The suit is for partition, wherein, two properties described under A and B schedule are sought to be apportioned between the plaintiffs and the defendant equally. The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit properties are joint family properties. Annamalai Chettiyar and his wife Smt.Vasantha Annamalai, 1st plaintiff A.Raja Bhoopathi, who is the son of Annamalai Chettiyar and younger son Vivekanandan, who is the defendant in the suit, are members of the family. On 01.03.2007, there was memorandum of understanding between the family members to divide the family property and the same was reduced into writing. The orig