ORDER :

Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 CPC against the petition and order dated 26.11.2018 in IA.No.642/2017 in OS.No.30/2016 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Vaniyambadi.

(1) This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order in IA.No.642/2017 in OS.No.30/2016 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Vaniyambadi.

(2) The revision petitioner is the 12th defendant in OS.No.30/2016. The respondent in the Civil Revision Petition is the plaintiff and she filed the suit in OS.No.30/2016 for a declaration that the judgment and decree passed in OS.No.138/2012 is null and void and for a declaration of plaintiff's title to the suit property with a consequential relief of permanent injunction.

(3) It is admitted that the revision petitioner/12th defendant has also filed an independent written statement.

(4) It is seen that an unregistered and unstamped document of partition was relied upon by the respondent/plaintiff to seek declaration. The alleged Partition Deed dated 13.12.1992 based on the unregistered and unstamped Partition Deed was pleaded by the respondent/plaintiff. However, the said document was marked as ExA1 by mistake, as contended by the revision petitioner. Hence, the revision petitioner/12th defendant filed IA.No.642/2017 to reject the unregistered Partition Deed dated 13.12.1992 marked as Ex.A1 as inadmissible in evidence.

(5) The Court below placed reliance upon Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act and a few statutory provisions under the Transfer of Property Act and the Registration Act and held that mere marking of document will not amount to its admissibility and the admissibility can be decided later. It was further observed that whether the document can be relied upon for collateral purpose or not, need not be decided at that stage and that the same will be gone into at the time of final hearing of the suit. Therefore, the petition filed by the revision petitioner/12th defendant was closed. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner/12th defendant has filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

(6) The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for declaration of title is based on the unregistered and unstamped Partition Deed dated 13.12.1992 and that the said document cannot be relied upon even for collateral purpose. The learned counsel then relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of S.Thirumalai V. S.Govindarajan reported in 2016 [5] LW 834, wherein this Court has held that an unregistered and unstamped Partition Deed cannot be looked into for any purpose.

(7) This Court, in the above cited decision, while considering the scope of admitting a similar document, has held in paragraphs No.19 and 20 as follows:-

''19.In the present case, the document Ex.B7 is not the original instrument for partition. The original instrument namely the unregistered and unstamped partition deed dated 07.04.1983 was marked as Ex.B1 in another suit in O.S.No.431 of 1976 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thanjavur. The said suit was filed by one Kittappa against the appellant herein. The document Ex.B7 is only a certified copy namely Ex.B1 in O.s.No.431 of 1976. Even under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, there can be validation only of the original when it is unstamped or insufficiently stamped. Hence, there is no scope for inclusion of a copy of a document as an instrument for the purpose of the Stamp Act. The term ?instruments? in Section 36 is confined only to the original. Having regard to the provisions of Sections 35 and 36, no secondary evidence which is produced to prove the contents of the document, can be dealt with under Section 35 or Section 36. Hence, the document Ex.B7 filed in the present case by the defendant is neither admissible nor can be acted upon to prove the actual partition under Ex.B7. Having regard to the language of Section 33, 35 and 38, the Court is duty bound to impound the document once