Unregistered and unstamped documents cannot be admitted as evidence, even upon payment of stamp duty, highlighting the necessity of meeting registration requirements as per relevant laws.

ORDER :

K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.

This Civil Revision Petition is preferred against the order, dated22.02.2024 passed in I.A.No.82 of 2022 in O.S.No.19 of 2019 on the file of the Additional District, Paramakudi, dated 22.02.2024.

2. The revision petitioners are the defendants 4 and 5 in the above said suit. The respondent as plaintiff filed the said suit in O.S.No.19 of 2019 on the file of the Additional District, Paramakudi for partition and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from encumbering the suit property. Pending suit, the revision petitioners/defendants filed an application in I.A.No.82 of 2022 for marking a release deed, dated 28.07.1992 after paying the stamp duty required. The said document was resisted on the side of the respondent/plaintiff stating that the said document requires compulsory registration and stamp duty. The trial Court considering the averments made in the petition and counter affidavit and the arguments advanced by the respective counsels dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the same the present revision is preferred.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners would submit that the respondent/plaintiff filed the said suit for partition claiming 1/3^rd share in the suit properties and for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners and other defendants from encumbering the suit properties. Pending suit, the revision petitioners/defendants have filed an application in I.A.No.82 of 2022 for collecting deficit stamp duty in respect of the document viz., released deed, dated 28.07.1992 executed by the mother of the plaintiff. Since it is an un-registered and un-stamped release deed the petitioners sought for the permission of this Court to collect the deficit stamp duty and to mark the same to establish that the plaintiff has no right or interest over the suit property. Further submission of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is that respondent's husband was examined as PW.1 and in his cross examination he has denied the execution of the said release deed, dated 28.07.1992 though he had admitted the signature made in the above document as attesting witness. Since the counsel for the respondent objected the marking of the said un-registered release deed during cross examination of the said witness, the petitioners filed a calculation memo for collecting the stamp duty to be paid on the above release deed. However, the trial Court without adverting the very purpose of the application erroneously dismissed the same on 22.02.2024, which requires consideration by this Court. He would further submit that in-sufficiently stamped instrument can be admitted as documentary evidence upon payment of stamp duty with penalty and the release deed can be accepted for collateral purpose after obtaining permission of the Court. In support of his contention he has relied upon the following decisions:

i) 2012(4) CTC 32 ( ( (Singaravelu Vs. Udayakumar) ) )

ii) 2001(4) SCC 197 (Chilakuri Gangulappa Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalle and another)

iii) 2010(1)CTC 27 (1. Kalaivani @ Devasena and another Vs. J. Ramu and 8 others )

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that since the alleged release deed was un-stamped and un-registered the same cannot be admitted in evidence even for collateral purpose. In support of his contention he has relied upon the following decisions:

i) 2011(1) MWN (Civil) 297 (Ammamuthu Ammal (died) and another Vs. Devaraj and others)

ii) 2024(6) CTC 399 ( Muthu Vs. Sampath and others )

iii) 2020(1) CTC 47 ( ( (Thangamuthu and others Vs. A.Jeyaraj) ) )

iv) 2011(2) MWN (Civil) 594 ( ( (Vasantha Amm