ORDER :

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the Fair and Decretal order dated 07.01.2015 passed in I.A.No.1373 of 2014 in O.S.No.61 of 2001 by the District Munsif court, Tiruvallur and allow the I.A.No.1373 of 2014 in O.S.No.61 of 2001, by allowing the above Civil Revision Petition.)

1. The defendants 2, 3 and 5 are the petitioners in this Civil Revision Petition. They have challenged the fair and decretal order dated 07.01.2015 passed in I.A.No.1373 of 2014 in O.S.No.61of 2001by the District Munsif Court, Tiruvallur.

2. The respondents 1 to 3/plaintiffs filed O.S.No.61 of 2001 seeking for the relief of declaration of title over the suit properties and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. The cause of action for filing the suit was that the 1st plaintiff had executed a Power of Attorney in favour of defendants 1 to 4 on 26.08.1997 and it was subsequently cancelled on 27.08.1997 and it was also informed to the defendants and inspite of the same, sale deed came to be executed in favour of the 5th defendant by defendants 1 to 4 and an attempt was also made to trespass into the properties. Aggrieved by the same, the suit was filed before the Court below.

3. The pleadings were completed, issues were framed and the suit reached the stage of trial. In the year 2007, an ex parte decree was passed and this ex parte decree came to be set aside on 21.04.2013. Thereafter, the trial commenced and the examination of the witnesses on the side of plaintiff was over and on the side of the defendants, D.W-1 was examined and this went on till June 2014.

4. The defendants filed I.A.No.1373 of 2014 and the 5th defendant who filed the sworn affidavit stated that there is a consent letter that was given by the plaintiff along with the Power of Attorney document and since this consent letter was not stamped or registered, D.W-1 was not able to mark this document during trial even though it was filed as a document along with the proof affidavit. Hence, the defendants wanted this consent letter to be impounded and to be sent to the Revenue Divisional Officer for collecting the stamp duty and penalty under Section 33 of the Stamp Act, 1899. The above application was contested by the plaintiff and the Court below after considering the contentions raised on either side, was pleased to dismiss the application through order dated 07.01.2015. Aggrieved by the same, this Civil Revision Petition has been filed before this Court.

5. Heard Mr. R.Munusamy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.R.Balachandran, learned counsel for R1 and Mr. V.Jayaprakash, learned counsel for R2 and R3.

6. The main ground that has been urged before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the 1st plaintiff while executing the Power of Attorney document had also executed the consent letter dated 30.10.1995 and based on the same, the suit property was sold to the 5th defendant. The 1st plaintiff, after giving her consent to the defendants 1 to 4, wriggled out of the same and an attempt was made by D.W-1 to mark the consent letter and it was filed along with the proof affidavit of D.W-1. Since the document was unstamped and unregistered, it was not permitted to be marked during the trial. Hence, the 5th defendant wants this document to be impounded under Section 33 of the Stamp Act, 1899 so that the plaintiffs can be directed to pay the stamp duty and penalty and thereafter, this document can be relied upon by the 5th defendant in its entirety or at least for collateral purposes.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners, to substantiate his submissions, relied upon the following judgments:

a. JupudiKesava Rao v. Pulavarthi Venkata Subbarao and Others reported in (1971) 1 SCC 545.

b. Ram Rattan (dead) by L.Rs. v. Bajrang Lal and Others reported in (1978) 3 SCC 236and

c. Gangappa and Another v. Fakk