The admissibility of unregistered documents as evidence and the right of the defendants to disprove such documents at a later stage.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order and decretal order passed in IA.No.2 of 2021 in OS.No.333 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Principal District Munsif, Kanchipuram dated 12.10.2022.)

This civil revision petition has been filed to set aside the order and decretal order passed in IA.No.2 of 2021 in OS.No.333 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Principal District Munsif, Kanchipuram dated 12.10.2022.

2. The revision petitioners herein are the defendants in the suit in OS.No.333 of 2017. The said suit was filed by the respondent herein for relief of permanent injunction. The contention of the plaintiff is that he cultivated the land and raised casuarina trees through unregistered sale letter dated 22.02.1997 said to be executed by the first defendant. Thereafter, he is cultivating the land. The said suit was strongly objected by the defendants by filing written statement. Now PW1 was examined on his side. The said unregistered sale letter was marked as Ex.A1. Now the petitioners / the defendants filed application to reject the said Ex.A1 document under Order 13 Rule 3 and Section 151 of CPC in IA.No.2 of 2021 before the Principal District Court, Kancheepuram. The said application was strongly objected by the plaintiff. On hearing both sides, the trial court dismissed the said application stating that the said unregistered document is related to casuarina trees and it comes under the category of standing timber and it is not an immovable property. So even if it is unregistered, it needs no registration as per law. Accordingly, the said application was dismissed. Challenging the said findings, the defendants have preferred this revision.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that if Ex.A1 is unregistered, it has no legal sanctity as per Sections 17 and 49 of Indian Registration Act and it has no evidentiary value and hence the said document Ex.A1 has to be rejected. But the trial judge erroneously marked the same and permitted the plaintiff to adduce evidence and it is not maintainable under law. To support his contention, he relied upon the judgment in the case of A.C.Lakshmipathy Vs. A.M.Chakrapani Reddiar and 5 Others reported in 2001~1~LW 257, wherein it is held as follows:

(Indian Stamp Act, S.35, Registration Act, S17, Estoppel – Document described as Memorandum recording partial partition of the family was sought to be marked during the cross examination while P.W.1 was being examined – Objection was raised on the ground that it is unregistered and unstamped document which is partly a partition deed and partly a settlement deed – Trial Judge held that it is an unregistered partition deed and can be admitted only for collateral purposes – Held, on appeal, the document was a Family Arrangement and was executed with the intention that it should constitute sole repositary as a document of title – As it is not stamped and registered it could not be looked into for any purpose.

4. He also relied upon the judgment in the case of S.Sivalingam Vs. A.Suryanarayan and 4 others in CRP.PD.No.1741 of 2014, wherein it is held as follows:

15. The following points emerge from the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the parties.

(i) A document which has to be stamped and has to be compulsorily registered cannot be marked and cannot be relied on by the parties for any purpose including collateral purpose when the said document was not properly stamped and not registered.

(ii) If the party producing the same, relies on the said document for collateral purpose, it can be marked, provided the same is properly stamped.

(iii) If the document is insufficiently stamped and unregistered and the party producing the same offers to pay deficit stamp duty and penalty, the Court has to impound the said document and refer the same to the concerned Sub Regist