CRP.PD.No.2437 of 2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 04.01.2021

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

CRP.PD.No.2437 of 2013 and

MP.No.1 of 2013

1.K.Natarajan

2.Meivazhi Selvam Gounder

3.T.Manonmani

..Petitioners

Vs.

1.The District Collector,

Vellore District,

Vellore

2.Thasildar,

Vellore Taluk,

Vellore District

3.K.Somasekaran(died)

4.S.Venkatesan

5.S.Palani

(R3-died, R4 & 5 – LR's of the deceased R3

as per the memo dated 01.12.2020 and vide

court order dated 09.12.2020 in CRP.No.

2437 of 2013)

..Respondents

PRAYER:

The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Code

of Civil Procedure against the order dated 13.03.2013 made in

IA.No.769 of 2012 in OS.No.609 of 2006 on the file of the Principal

District Court, Vellore.

For Petitioners

: M/s.M.R.Sakunthala

1/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

CRP.PD.No.2437 of 2013

For Respondents

For R1 & 2 :Mr.S.Jagannathan,

Government Advocate(CS)

R3

: died (steps taken)

R4 & 5

: Notice served

ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition is directed as against the order passed

in IA.No.769 of 2012 in OS.No.609 of 2006 on the file of the Principal

District Court, Vellore dated 13.03.2013 thereby dismissed the petition

filed by the petitioners to receive the document and permit them to mark the

same as Ex.A.10 on their side.

2.

The petitioners are the plaintiffs. They filed suit for declaration

of title, partition and for mandatory injunction as against the respondents. At

the time of filing of suit, the petitioners failed to produce the release deed

dated 02.04.1983 along with the plaint for the reason that it was misplaced.

While cross examination of DW1, he also categorically admitted the said

release deed which was shown to him and also admitted his signature in the

said document. Therefore, the petitioner filed application for reception and

marking the said document and it is unregistered one. The respondents 3 to

5 also filed counter and objected the reception of the said document on the

2/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

CRP.PD.No.2437 of 2013

ground that it is not admissible in evidence to prove the title as per Section

17 of Registration Act, since it is unregistered one. Further unless stamp duty

is paid, first the said document cannot be looked into by the Court.

Considering the said petition, the trial court dismissed the petition. Aggrieved

by the same, the petitioners are before this Court. The learned counsel for

the petitioners relied upon the judgment in the case of Karuppannan Vs.

Thavasiappan and another reported in (2006) 4 MLJ 706 in support of

her contention.

3.

Though notice was issued to the respondents 3 to 5 herein,

insofar as R4 and R5 they refused to receive the same and R3 died. Though

their names are printed in the cause list, no one appeared on behalf of them

before this Court in person or through pleader.

4.

The petitioners are plaintiffs. They filed suit for declaration of

title, partition along with mandatory injunction. They filed document and

marked the same as Ex.A1 to A9. At the time of filing the suit, they failed to

file the document, namely release deed dated 02.04.1983 executed by the

third defendant in favour of one, KV Kuppusamy Naicker for the reason it was

misplaced and as such they could not be able to trace the said document at

the time of filing the suit and after filing the suit, they found the document

3/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

CRP.PD.No.2437 of 2013

and during the cross examination DW1, he categorically admitted the said

document as well as his signature found in the said document. The trial court

rejected the petition for the reason that the said document is an unregistered

document and only after the payment of stamp duty it can be looked into. In

this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment in

the case of Karuppannan Vs. Thavasiappa