ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the docket order passed by the learned II Additional District Judge at Salem in OS.No.160 of 2016 dated 06.12.2017, thereby permitting the first respondent to mark unregistered and unstamped agreement dated

28.07.2014.

2. The first respondent filed suit for specific performance on the basis of the oral agreement confirmed by the receipt dated 28.07.2014. When the PW1's evidence, the first respondent while marking the unregistered receipt, possession and handing over agreement dated 28.07.2014, the petitioner objected the same. However, the court below permitted the said document to mark for collateral purpose but not to prove any right or title over the property. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition has been filed.

3. Mr.R.Jayaprakash, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that admittedly the said document is unregistered one and unstamped and as such it is inadmissible in evidence of the transaction affecting the immovable property. The said document is a xerox copy of the unregistered document and as such it cannot be received even for collateral purpose. There is no such transaction between the petitioner and the first respondent for the sale of the suit property and the petitioner never agreed to sell his property to the first respondent as per the oral agreement. The suit itself is vexatious and frivolous one. According to the first respondent, the entire sale consideration of Rs.46,65,000/- was paid and filed suit for specific performance. It is unbelievable transaction. No one agree for payment of entire sale consideration without registration of sale deed. Under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, the alleged document dated 28.07.2014, requires compulsory registration. Therefore, as per Section 49 of the Registration Act, it is inadmissible in evidence and liable to be rejected. As per Section 35 of the Stamp Act, there is clear bar to mark unregistered and unstamped document. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment in the case of S.Baskar Vs. V.Palanisamy and Ors reported in

2014 (1) MWN (Civil) 61.

4. Per contra, Mr.T.Murugamanickam, Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that unregistered and unstamped document can be marked for collateral purpose but not to prove any right or title over the property. Therefore, the court below rightly permitted the first respondent to mark the same. He further submitted that as per proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, categorically permitting to receive as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chatper II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgments in the case of S.Kaladevi Vs. V.R.Somasundaram reported in (2010) 5 SCC 401 and in the case of Ameer Minhaj Vs. Dierdre Elizabeth (Wright) Issar reported in (2018) 7 SCC 639.

5. Heard, Mr.R.Jayaprakash, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr.T.Murugamanickam, Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent.

6. The petitioner is the first defendant and the first respondent is the plaintiff. The first respondent filed suit for specific performance on the strength of the agreement dated 28.07.2014. The case of the first respondent is that the first defendant is the owner of the suit property by virtue of the sale deed dated 09.03.2000 purchased from his vendor one, Jayarani through her power of attorney one, Pichamuthu. The first respondent agreed to purchase the suit property and fixed total sale consideration of Rs.46,65,000/-. The agreement was oral and the petitioner received sale consideration by cash and cheque on various dates. In pursuance to the receipt of entire sale consideration, the first defendant handed over the possession of the suit property along with all parent documents on 28.07.2014 and executed agreement. Based on the said agreement, the suit has been filed. While pending the suit, while PW1 marking t