Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 60443
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J
Mohan – Appellant
Versus
S.Ganesan – Respondent
CRP.No.4215 of 2025|CMP.No.21691 of 2025|O.S.No.57 of 2022|I.A.No.4 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.A.Sundara Vadhanan
For the Respondents: Mr.S.Parthasarathy
Impounding unstamped unregistered documents permits evidence for collateral purposes but does not legitimize the document's registration or title claims.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Civil Procedure Code - Section 151 - Unregistered sale deed - Plaintiffs sought to impound an unregistered sale deed for assessment - Court allowed assenting no prejudice would be caused to the defendants - Inadmissibility of unstamped unregistered documents in evidence discussed - The right of defendants to raise objections while marking documents reaffirmed. (Paras 1-11)
(B) Evidence - Admissibility of Documents - Unregistered and unstamped documents are initially inadmissible but can be admitted for collateral purposes upon payment of stamp duty - Any document requiring registration is inadmissible unless duly registered. (Paras 6-10)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff initiated proceedings for title based on an unregistered sale deed and sought its impounding for stamp duty. The defendants challenged the application citing statutory requirements for registration.
Findings of Court:
The order to impound the unregistered sale deed was upheld as not affecting the rights of the defendants, confirming their ability to object during the marking of documents.
Issues: The main issue addressed was whether impounding an unregistered sale deed to pay stamp duty would validate the document's registration.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that impounding allows the admission of unstamped documents for collateral purposes but does not cure the non-registration defect.
Result: Civil Revision Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. civil revision petition concerning unregistered sale deed (Para 1) |
| 2. dispute over admissibility of unstamped document (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. impounding does not validate registration (Para 4 , 6) |
| 4. legal principles regarding admissibility of unregistered documents (Para 7 , 9) |
ORDER
The unsuccessful defendants 1, 3 and 4 have preferred this Civil Revision Petition. The plaintiff, namely one Ganesan has filed a Suit in O.S.No.57 of 2022, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Nagapattinam seeking for the relief of Declaration and for Permanent Injunction. The defendants have filed their written statement and necessary issues were framed. The plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and the case was posted for cross examination of PW1 on 27.08.2024 and at that stage, the plaintiff has filed an application in I.A.No.4 of 2024 in O.S.No.4 of 2024 under Section 151 CPC to send the unregistered sale deed for assessment for stamping and for payment of penalty. Upon hearing either side, the Court below, vide order dated 18.06.2025, allowed the application on the ground that while marking the documents the defendants can raise their legal objections and if the documents is sent for assessment and stamping and for payment of penalty, no prejudice would be caused to the either side. Aggrieved over the same, the defendants have preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners would submit that the plaintiff is claiming title based on unregistered sale deed which is now sought to be stamped, when the document requires registration, the impounding of the document will not validate the registration. When the document to be stamped is against the statutory provisions of Registration Act , whether the collection of stamp duty as per Stamp Act can be permissible. When the document is under challenge in the suit by the defendants / revision petitioners herein in the written statement, based on the same, the issue is also framed, whether the proceedings to impound the document for the purpose of paying stamp duty, is only to fill up the lacuna in the case of the plaintiff and the same affects the right of defence of the revision petitioners/defendants. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners, in support of his contentions, relied upon the judgment of this Court in Amertham v. Thannace and another [ 2020 (4) CTC 395 ] to show that unstamped unregistered document is inadmissible in evidence. It cannot be relied upon in Court proceedings when the document becomes basis for a person claiming title. Reliance has been placed to yet another judgment of this Court inGajendiran v. V.Seetharaman and 3 others [CRP(PD)No.1610 of 2016 dated 18.02.2021] to show that unregistered sale deed cannot be admitted in evidence a the plaintiff claims title and possession based on unregistered sale deed.
3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that an unregistered and unstamped document can be marked as evidence for collateral purpose, where the document now sought to be stamped, when the document requires to be registered, the impounding of the document will not affect the rights of the other side. The revision petitioners/defendants can very well raise their objections while marking the documents. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents, in support of his contentions, relied on the following judgments:
(i) V.Ramesh v. V.Nagaraj [ CRP(PD) No.4305 of 2022 dated 04.06.2024 ]
(ii) Kasthuri v. R.Hemalatha [ CRP(MD)No.1877 of 2017 dated 01.02.2022 ]
(iii) Ananda Nayagi v. Kannikumari and Others [CRP Nos.2893 & 2896 of 2022]
4. This Court heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the entire materials available on record.
5. The Suit is filed for declaration of title based on the unregistered sale deed dated 18.08.1990 or in the alternative to declare the plaintiff's title based on adverse possession. It is seen from the records that the
