An unregistered and unstamped Release Deed cannot be admitted as evidence unless it is duly registered, as per Section 17 of the Registration Act.

ORDER :

(P.B. Balaji, J.)

1. This civil revision petition has been filed as against the order dated 30.08.2017 made in I.A. No.171 of 2016 in O.S. No.69 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Mayiladuthurai.

2. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the order dated 30.08.2017 in I.A. No.171 of 2016 in O.S. No.69 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Mayiladuthurai, is the revision petitioner.

3. The 4th defendant filed I.A. No.171 of 2016 seeking to introduce an unstamped and unregistered Release Deed dated 17.06.2002 as evidence on his side. The said application was resisted by the revision petitioner/plaintiff on the ground that the Release Deed was unregistered and cannot be received in evidence.

4. The Trial Court, accepting the request of the 4th defendant, holding that the admissibility of the document can be decided later and no prejudice would be caused by ordering the document to be received, proceeded to allow the application.

5. I have heard Mr.A.Muthukumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.B.Jawahar, learned counsel for the 1st respondent.

6. Mr.A.Muthukumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would refer to the unregistered document filed along with the typed set of papers and take me through its contents. He would contend that when the document was "in praesenti", the document was required to be compulsorily registered and admittedly the document being unregistered and unstamped, the same cannot be received in evidence. He would rely on the decision of this Court in A.Devasikamani Goundar Vs. M.A. Andamuthu Goundar reported in 1955 (1) MLJ 457.

7. Per contra, Mr.B.Jawahar, learned counsel for the 1st respondent would submit that even in the written statement, the defendant has taken a categorical stand that, for consideration the revision petitioner/plaintiff had relinquished his right in the property. Therefore, in support of such plea in the written statement, it has become necessary for the contesting defendant, namely the 1st respondent herein to mark the said Release Deed. He would also contend that he was willing to pay the deficit stamp duty and the question of the unregistered document being received in evidence could always be tested after receiving the document. He would therefore pray for dismissal of the revision petition.

8. I have carefully considered the submission advanced by the learned counsel on either side.

9. Admittedly, the document sought to be produced is an unregistered and unstamped Release Deed. The Release Deed also contains the following clause:

It is thus clear that only under the said Release Deed, the releasor has allegedly relinquished his right, title and interest in the subject property. Therefore, under Section 17 of the Registration Act, the said Release Deed is a document which requires to be registered compulsorily. Mere payment of deficit stamp duty would not cure the defect of non registration.

10. In A.Devasikamani Goundar's case, it is held that when an objection is taken as to the admissibility of the document for want of stamp and registration, it is the duty of the Court to decide both the questions at once and if the Court comes to the conclusion that the document is unregistered, then it requires registration. The Court has to reject the document then and there and cannot ask the document to be stamped first and thereafter decide whether it would require registration. The said ratio would squarely applied to the facts of the present case.

11. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent would place reliance on the decision of this Court in Saminathan Vs. Sukumar reported in 2021 (5) CTC 859, where this Court held that an unregistered partition deed can be looked into only for the limited purpose of enquiring whether there has been severance of status among the parties to the lis or among the parties to the document and nothing more. Relying on the said decision, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent would submit that though the d