ORDER :

R. VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

1. The defendants 1 and 3 in O.S.No.20 of 2018 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Mudukulathur has filed the present civil revision petition challenging the dismissal of their application for reception of an unregistered sale deed as a document in evidence.

2.The first respondent has filed the above said suit for the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction. According to the plaintiff, the suit schedule properties belonged to one Mohideen Bava and he had executed a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on 23.05.2013 for a valuable consideration under a registered document in Document No.726 of 2013.

3.According to the plaintiff, the defendants do not have any right over the property. The third defendant has filed a written statement contending that the second defendant has executed an unregistered sale deed in favour of the third defendant on 21.12.2012 after receipt of full sale consideration. Based upon the said sale deed, the third defendant has also mutated the revenue records in his name. Thereafter, the third defendant has executed a registered settlement deed in favour of his wife namely the first defendant on 21.11.2014. According to the defendant, the vendor of the plaintiff do not have any right or title to execute the sale in favour of the plaintiff on 23.05.2013.

4.Pending suit, the defendants 1 and 3 have filed I.A.No.3 of 2023 under Section 151 of C.P.C seeking the permission of the Court to mark the unregistered sale deed dated 21.12.2012 on the side of the third defendant. According to the third defendant, the unregistered sale deed was executed by the second defendant in favour of the third defendant with an assurance that he would execute a sale deed on a later point of time. With the consent of the third defendant, patta was also mutated in favour of the third defendant. The third defendant was marking the said unregistered sale deed for collateral purposes.

5.The plaintiff has filed a counter strongly opposing the said application contending that the stamp papers, though stand in the name of the third defendant, it was purchased by a private company in Chennai. Therefore, the said unregistered sale deed is a forged document. It was further contended that the unregistered sale deed cannot be received even for collateral purposes and hence, prayed for dismissal of the said application.

6.The trial Court after considering the judgments filed on either side, arrived at a finding that it is an unregistered, unstamped sale deed and the third defendant claiming title under the said document and therefore, the same cannot be received in evidence. Challenging the same, the present civil revision petition has been filed.

7.According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, thought is an unregistered and an unstamped document, the same can be marked and it can be looked into for collateral purposes. This document can be used to prove that the third defendant is in possession of the suit schedule property. There is no prohibition under any one of the statutory provisions to mark the unregistered, unstamped document for collateral purposes to prove the possession.

8.The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the decision of this Court in CRP.No.3350 of 2024 dated 21.08.2024 ( Suganshwaran Vs.Paramashivam Nadar and another) wherein this Court has issued a direction to the trial Court to impound the document and collected the deficit stamp duty and penalty and thereafter, look into the document for collateral purposes.

9.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents herein had relied upon a decision of this Court in 2024 (6) CTC 399 (Muthu Vs. Sampath and others) had contended that mere payment of deficit stamp duty would not cure the defect of non-registration and therefore, the said document cannot be relied upon even for collatoral purposes. He had further contended that such a document cannot even be admitted in evidence. The learned counsel also also re