BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 20.02.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR and CMP(MD).No.17216 of 2025 Gururaj ... Petitioner Vs.

1.Selvakumar 2.Palanisamy

3.Thangappa ... Respondents PRAYER :-Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order passed by the learned District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Illupur in I.A.No. 6 of 2024 in O.S.No. 71 of 2019 dated

19.06.2025.

For Petitioners : Mr.M.Rajarajan For Respondents : Mr.K.Dinesh for R1 Ms.V.Subha, Legal aid counsel for R2 & R3

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed seeking to set aside the order passed by the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Illupur, in I.A.No.6 of 2024 in O.S.No.71 of 2019, dated 19.06.2025.

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and perused the materials available on record.

3.Challenging the order passed by the trial Court permitting the marking of a document, which is an unregistered sale deed, this petition has been filed. The trial Court allowed the above said petition on the ground that the document has to be impounded and marked for collateral purpose.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that when the said document is a sale deed, the admissibility of the said document can be considered only if the document is registered, as contemplated under Section 49 of the Registration Act, whereas the present document is an unregistered sale deed, which cannot be marked.

5.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that it is not in dispute that it is an unregistered sale deed and that the suit is one for permanent injunction alone and not for a declaration of title. Therefore, this document has to be marked only for the purpose of collateral purpose to establish that he is in possession of the suit schedule property. 6.In support of the same, he relied upon the order passed by this Court in the case of V.Ramesh Vs. V.Nagaraj in C.R.P.No.4305 of 2024, dated

04.06.2024, wherein it has been held as follows:

“19. On a careful perusal of the above said judgments, it is clear that non-effect of registration of the document in terms of Section 49 of the Registration Act does not bar the use of an unregistered document for collateral purpose. In the case on hand also the petitioner/plaintiff pleaded that he purchased the property through an unregistered sale deed and he filed the suit only for relief of permanent injunction and not for declaration by claiming title over the property. Therefore, the said document can be received as evidence for collateral purpose to prove possession of the property, subject to proof and relevancy.

......

23.On a careful perusal of the above said judgments, it is clear that if the defendant wants to prove the sale through an unregistered sale deed, it cannot be received as evidence and in the written statement or in the application without any averments in respect of collateral purpose, the said unregistered document cannot be received for collateral purpose. As far as the judgment in Thangamuthu and Others vs. A.Jeyaraj reported in 2020 (1) CTC 47 is concerned, the learned Judge has not discussed about Section 49 of the Registration Act and only referred to Section 35 of the Stamp Act, 1899. Whereas, the judgments relied on by the petitioner/plaintiff clearly show that even an unregistered sale deed which is compulsorily registrable can be looked into for the purpose of proving possession and not for the main purpose of sale of property. In the case on hand also the suit is filed only for permanent injunction and not for declaration of title over the property and thereby, the said unregistered sale deed dated 08.02.1999 can be marked as a document under the proviso to Section 49 of the Indian Stamp Act for collateral purpose.

24.The Trial Court has failed to consider the above said aspect and erron