Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. Kannammal, J.
R. Devadass & Another – Petitioners
Versus
R. Govindarajan & Others – Respondents
C.R.P.(PD).No. 2284 of 2020 & C.M.P. No. 14316 of 2020
Decided On : 14-07-2022
Panchayat Muchalika - Division of Suit Properties - Registration Act, Stamp Act - The Court discussed the admissibility of unregistered, unstamped documents for collateral purpose and emphasized the need to mark such documents subject to objections by the opposite party. The Court also highlighted the importance of considering objections at the final decision stage rather than rejecting evidence at the threshold.
Fact of the Case:
The defendants sought to mark a Panchayat Muchalika dated 27.05.2008 as evidence in a suit for division of properties. The Trial Court dismissed the application, leading to the filing of a Civil Revision Petition.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Trial Court erred in rejecting the evidence at the threshold and emphasized the need to mark the alleged Muchalika subject to objections as per settled Law.
Issues: Admissibility of unregistered, unstamped documents for collateral purpose, rejection of evidence at the threshold, and the need to consider objections at the final decision stage.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the importance of marking unregistered, unstamped documents subject to objections and considering objections at the final decision stage rather than rejecting evidence at the threshold.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was allowed, and the order of the Trial Court was set aside.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The court emphasized that unregistered and unstamped documents, such as Panchayat Muchalikas, can be marked and considered for collateral purposes during trial, provided objections are raised by the opposing party. The admissibility of such documents should be deferred to the final decision stage, allowing the court to consider objections without outright rejection at the threshold (!) (!) .
The practice of marking documents tentatively and subject to final objections helps streamline the trial process, prevents unnecessary delays, and ensures that evidence is not prematurely excluded, thereby facilitating a fair evaluation of the evidence and objections at the final stage (!) .
Family arrangements or family settlement documents, even if unregistered, may be considered valid if they are bona fide, voluntary, and made in good faith to resolve disputes. Such documents may be oral or written, and registration is only necessary if required by law for the specific type of agreement [p_16–p_20].
The admissibility of unregistered documents for collateral purposes is supported by the principle that they can be examined for their content and purpose, particularly to establish facts like possession, enjoyment, or family arrangements, provided objections are properly raised and considered at the final stage (!) (!) .
The court highlighted that documents creating rights over immovable properties, such as relinquishments or family settlements, which are not registered or stamped as required, are generally inadmissible for proving primary claims or purposes but may be examined for collateral purposes if objections are deferred and properly considered (!) (!) .
The importance of following procedural reforms was underscored, advocating for trial courts to adopt practices that allow marking of documents subject to objections, thus avoiding unnecessary prolongation of trials and ensuring that appellate or revisional courts can review objections without remitting cases back to the trial court repeatedly (!) .
Overall, the court allowed the revision petition, setting aside the trial court's order that rejected the marking of the unregistered Panchayat Muchalika, reaffirming that such documents should be considered for collateral purposes and objections should be resolved at the final stage of trial (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order of the learned Trial Judge dated 17.03.2020 passed in I.A. No.4 of 2019 in O.S. No.726 of 2011 in dismissing the petition in the said suit passed by the learned 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.)
1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the order dated 17.03.2020 in I.A. No.4 of 2019 in O.S. No.726 of 2011 for dismissing the application in the said suit passed by the learned 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.
2. The petitioners 1 and 2 herein are the defendants 2 and 5 respectively while the 1st respondent is the plaintiff in the suit who has sought for relief to direct for division of the suit properties into 5 equal shares and allot one such share to the plaintiff/1st respondent herein by metes and bounds and to declare the settlement deed dated 07.09.2011, registered as Doc. No.5526 of 2011 at SRO, Ganapathy as null and void and binding the plaintiff by means of Declaratory Decree.
3. During the trial of the suit, the defendants/petitioners herein have filed I.A. No.4 of 2020 seeking the Court below to receive the Panchayat Muchalika dated 27.05.2008 listed as Document No.4 in the petition filed in I.A. No.3 of 2019 and to mark as an exhibit tentatively and the admissibility may be deferred at the stage of final disposal of the case. The Trial Court dismissed the aforesaid application holding that as Panchayat Muchalika dated 27.05.2008 being unregistered document cannot be taken into account even as collateral purpose. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid dismissal order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the defendants/petitioners herein have filed totally 25 documents before the Court below to prove that there was an arrangement between the family members to the suit and thereby division of properties have taken place and by virtue of an Panchayat Muchalika dated 27.05.2008, the said arrangement was confirmed. However, the 24 documents have been marked as exhibits Ex.B1 to Ex.B24 except the said Panchayat Muchalika dated 27.05.2008 listed as Sl. No.4 since it has been returned for want of registration.
5. It has been further submitted that the Panchayat Muchalika is very important document to prove the case of the defendants in which the 1st respondent/plaintiff had signed in the presence of the witnesses after allotting their respective shares between the family members as per family arrangements. Unless the said document is marked and placed on records, the rights of the defendants will be jeopardized.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the Panchayat Muchalika will prove the factum of possession and enjoyment of the properties by the parties to the suit specifically the plaintiff/1st respondent herein who has filed the suit seeking for his 1/5th share in the suit property.
7. It has been further submitted that the law is well settled that even unregistered document can be marked and looked into for collateral purpose. Therefore, it is just and necessary that the said document has to be marked tentatively with objection being raised by the opposite parties and admissibility can be deferred at the stage of final disposal of the case. Hence, the Court below cannot reject the document at the time when the document sought to be marked. Without considering the aforesaid aspects, the Court below dismissed the said application mechanically holding that Panchayat Muchalika cannot be taken into account as it is unregistered one. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioners prays this Court to allow the present petition by setting aside the order dated 17.03.2020 passed in I.A. No.4 of 2019 in O.S. No.726 of 2011.
8. In support his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the Judgment passed by the Supreme
The main legal point established in the judgment is the admissibility of unregistered, unstamped documents for collateral purpose and the need to mark such documents subject to objections by the oppo....
Law is not that in every case where a party sets up plea that court may look into an unregistered documents to show nature of possession that court would agree to it – Cardinal principle would be whe....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
