ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order, dated 05.01.2017 passed in I.A.No.420 of 2016 in O.S.No.58 if 2010 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Bodinayakanur, Theni District.

2. The revision petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the original suit and the petitioner in the I.A. petition. The respondents herein are the defendants in the original suit and the respondents in the I.A. petition.

3. The revision petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for a prayer of declaration that the alteration in the revenue records in favour of the defendants 1 and 2 are invalid. In the original suit, the revision petitioner filed a petition, in I.A.No.420 of 2016, to receive an unregistered partition deed, dated 25.06.1994 subject to payment of penalty and stamp duty. That petition was dismissed by the trial Court. Against the same, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing this revision.

4. Brief substance of the petition, in I.A.No.420 of 2016, is as follows:-

A partition deed, dated 25.06.1994 was executed by Nagammal and Thottappagounder, regarding the suit properties and other properties, that document was not registered and the document is necessary for the suit. The petitioner is ready to pay the stamp duty and penalty and prayed the petition to be allowed.

5. Brief substance of the counter filed by the first and second respondents, in I.A.No.420 of 2016, is as follows:-

Already the suit was dismissed for default, then, it was restored. Only after the restoration of the suit, the petitioner has come forward with this petition. No valuation was mentioned in the document, dated 25.06.1994. The petitioner has not filed any valuation certificate and hence, the penalty cannot be fixed. Without fixing the value, at the time of execution of the document, the balance of stamp duty cannot be fixed under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. Brief substance of the counter filed by the respondents 3 and 4, in I.A.No.420 of 2016, is as follows:-

If the petitioner/plaintiff is really interested in paying the stamp duty and penalty, he would have filed this petition six years ago, at the time of filing the suit itself. Only to drag on the case, the petitioner has come forward with this petition and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. After hearing both sides, the trial Court has dismissed the I.A. petition. Against the same, the petitioner approached this Court by way of this Revision.

8. On the side of the revision petitioner, it is stated that the petitioner is ready to pay the deficit stamp duty according to the guidelines value prevailing at the time of execution of the said document with fine as determine by the Court under Section 35 of the Indian Registration Act, which enable payment of deficit stamp. The trial Court dismissed the petition only on the ground that the petitioner failed to produce the revenue records and the guideline value. The Court below ought to have seen that there is no specific serious objection on the part of the respondents, without the document, the title of the plaintiff cannot be proved and the trial Court is erroneous in dismissing the petition.

9. On the side of the revision petitioner, it is further stated that the brother and sister had executed the said document, dated 25.06.1994. There is no averments in the counter regarding the signature of the executors, the unregistered partition deed was executed by the defendants' father and the plaintiffs' mother, who are brother and sister. The petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed only on the ground that no value was mentioned in the document. Non-registration of the document cannot curtail the right of the party and prayed the revision petition to be dismissed.

10. On the side of the respondents 1 and 2, it is stated that the suit is for declaration, based on this document. Under Section 17 of the Registration Act, the deed has to be registered. Unregistered deed