BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10.02.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR C.R.P.(MD)No.3605 of 2025 and C.M.P.(MD)No.19161 of 2025 R.Surya Narayanan ... Petitioner -vs.-

1.Karuppaiah

2.R.Jeyaram ...Respondents PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order, dated 05.08.2025 passed in I.A.No.06 of 2025 in O.S.No.25 of 2019 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Bodinayakkanur, Theni District by allowing this Civil Revision Petition.

For Petitioner :Mr.C.Ganeshkumar For Respondents :Ms.A.Ancy Gold *****

ORDER

The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the learned District Munsif, Bodinayakkanur, Theni District in I.A.No.06 of 2025 in O.S.No.25 of 2019, dated 05.08.2025.

2.Heard Mr.C.Ganeshkumar, learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner and Ms.A.Ancy Gold, learned Counsel for the respondents.

3.The first respondent herein, as plaintiff, has filed a suit in O.S.No.25 of 2019 before the District Munsif Court, Bodinayakkanur, Theni District, against the petitioner and the second respondent, for declaration to declare the registered sale deed, dated 03.08.2011 as null and void and for other reliefs. During the pendency of the suit, the first defendant/petitioner herein has filed an application in I.A.No.6 of 2025 under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act and Section 151 of CPC seeking permission to pay the deficit stamp duty and penalty amount in respect of the unregistered sale deed, dated 20.12.2000. The learned District Munsif, Bodinayakkanur, Theni District, vide impugned order, dated 05.08.2025, had dismissed the said application on the ground that the document in question cannot be admitted in evidence. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

4.The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned trial Judge had erred in holding that even if the 1^st defendant pays the deficit stamp duty and the penalty thereof, the sale deed in question cannot be received in evidence in view of the clear bar under Section 49 of the Registration Act. He also submitted that the trial Court failed to take into account that exemption in proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by this Court or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, to be registered, may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance. He also submitted that the document to be marked is only for the collateral purpose and that the trial Court without considering the same, has erroneously dismissed the application filed by the petitioner, which needs interference of this Court.

5.The learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that for the very same relief, an application was filed by the petitioner herein in I.A.No.4 of 2021 and the said application was dismissed, which reached finality. She also submitted that now the first defendant has again filed the present application for the very same relief and the trial Court has rightly dismissed the same by holding that the unregistered document cannot be taken as evidence and the prayer sought before the Court below seeking permission to pay the deficit stamp duty and penalty can not at all be permitted and the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner herein, which needs no interference of this Court and sought for dismissal of this petition.

6.This Court considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

7.It is not in dispute that the first respondent herein has filed a suit for declaration to declare the document, dated 03.08.2011, as null and void and and the petitioner herein has filed an application in I.A.No.6 of 2025 under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act and Section 151 of CPC seeking permission to pay the deficit stamp duty and penalty amount in respect o