ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed as against the fair and decreetal order dated 28.04.2015 passed in I.A.No.1095 of 2014 in O.S.No.64 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif, Madurantakkam, Kanchipuram District, thereby dismissing the petition filed to receive the stamp duty, penalty and to mark the unregistered sale deed for collateral purpose.

2. The petitioner is the plaintiff and he filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. The case of the plaintiff is that he is the owner of the suit property and he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property which was originally owned by his father. His father and one Daniel sold an extent of 62 cents to the mother of the plaintiff by a registered sale deed dated 17.7.1984. The remaining extent of 32 cents in same survey number was sold by the first respondent herein and his brother infavour of the plaintiff's mother on 10.6.1991 under an unregistered sale deed. From the date of purchase, the plaintiff's mother was in possession and enjoyment of the entire property and she dug a well in the said property and also obtained electricity service connection in her name. She was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property more than the statutory period and prescribed title over the suit property by adverse possession also. The Patta was also transferred to her name and hence, she is the absolute owner of the suit property. She executed a settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff on 24.09.2008 and after the settlement deed, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Now, the defendants claimed the suit property and attempted to trespass into the suit property in view of the exclamation of land value. Hence the suit.

3. The case of the defendants is that the plaintiff is an absolute owner of the property only in respect of 62 cents out of 94 cents and the remaining 32 cents of suit property was owned by the defendants and they were in possession and enjoyment of the same. An unregistered sale deed dated 10.6.1996 is not valid since it was not a registered one as contemplated under Section 49 of Registration Act. Pending suit, the petitioner filed an application to mark the unregistered document dated 10.6.1991 in I.A.No.623 of 2011 in O.S.No.64 of 2009 and the same was dismissed by the Trial Court by a fair and decreeal order dated 7.4.2011. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred a civil revision petition before this Court in C.R.P.No.4056 of 2011 and this Court also dismissed the civil revision petition and confirmed the order passed by the Trial Court. Once again, the petitioner filed an another application in I.A.No.1095 of 2014 in O.S.No.64 of 2009 to receive the stamp duty, penalty and to mark the unregistered sale deed dated 10.6.1991 for collateral purpose and the sale was also dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that only because of the earlier petition was dismissed and confirmed by this Court, the present application was also dismissed. The payment of deficit stamp duty and penalty in respect of the insufficiently stamped document is permissible under proviso to Section 35 of Indian Stamp Act. An insufficiently stamped and unregistered sale deed cannot be admissible in evidence for collateral purpose. The petitioner want to rely upon the unregistered sale deed dated 10.6.1991 only for the collateral purpose to prove the factum of possession which was already handed over to him. It was not filed with an intention to trace his title. Further, the specific case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's mother was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and after settlement deed, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Therefore, the unregistered sale deed can very well be marked for collateral purpose.

5. In support of his contention, he relied upon the