This revision petition has been filed against the order passed in O.S.No.6 of 2004 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore at Virudachalam, fixing the stamp duty and penalty for an unregistered partition deed.

2. The revision petitioners are the defendants 2, 13, 15 and 16 in the original suit and the suit in O.S.No.6 of 2004 had been filed by the plaintiffs for partition of the suit properties. The trial court had decreed the suit on 30.11.2009 and determined the share of the plaintiffs as 1/3. Against which, A.S.No.513 of 2006 had been filed by the plaintiffs before this court. This court by its order dated 27.08.2012, set aside the decree and judgment passed by the trial court and remitted back the matter to the trial court for fresh consideration, by giving the following decisions in points.

Point No.1 is decided to the effect that the lower court was not justified in holding that there was partition among the family members in the absence of any clinching evidence and the lower court also was wrong in ordering partial partition.

Point No.2 is decided to the effect that the finding of the lower court concerning oral sale is not tenable.

Point No.3 is decided to the effect that the lower court was not justified in placing reliance on the pattas in favour of defendants 1 and 2 in holding that they acquire title to those properties concerned.

Point No.4 is decided to the effect that the lower court was not justified in rejecting the request of the defendants to get marked the note books two in number purported to contain the facts relating to the partition and allotment of shares.

Point No.5 & 6 are decided to the effect that the judgment and decree of the lower court are liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside.

It is for the court either to give a finding whether there was any partition in the year 1969 or not. If it is so, then by way of enforcing that partition, all the shares of the three parties should clearly be spelt out item wise and if it is found that there is any over stepping of such shares by any one of the parties in enjoyment or in alienating them, then that would not be binding on the other sharers. The respective purchasers have to work out their remedies accordingly during the final decree proceedings. On the other hand, if the court finds that there was no partition at all during the year 1969, then the partition decree simplicitor in respect of the suit properties should be passed and during the final decree proceedings, the respective purchasers have to work out their remedies based on enquiry.

3. In pursuant to the above direction, the trial court sent the partition note book which was sought to be valued, to the Sub Registrar, Thittagudi in this regard. The Sub Registrar replied to the court that no guideline value was available for the year 1969. Therefore, the trial court took 10% of the present guideline value of the properties as the market value for the year 1969 and fixed the same as Rs.6,93,770/-. The trial court arrived stamp duty for the unregistered partition note book at 4.5% of the said amount i.e. Rs.31,220 (6,93,770 x 4.5%=Rs.31,220) and arrived penalty with 10 times of Rs.31,220/- as Rs.3,12,220/-. The total stamp duty and penalty was fixed at Rs.3,43,420/- and the trial court directed the parties to pay that amount. Against which, the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners.

4. The revision petitioners, in their revision petition stated that the unregistered document, where stamp duty has been valued can be looked into for collateral purpose and relied upon various judgments.

5. Mr.Venkatasubban, learned counsel appearing for the contested respondents would contend that the Stamp Act deals with the impounding of the document and collection of the same and that mere collection of deficit stamp duty will not cure the registration and hence, the unregistered document cannot be used for any purpose, except as provided under proviso to Section 49