The admission of a document in evidence in interlocutory proceedings does not preclude a party from raising an objection to its admissibility in the trial of the suit, and an unstamped and unregistered partition deed cannot be admitted in evidence to establish the factum of partition.

1. The legal representatives of the deceased first plaintiff and the second plaintiff in O.S.No. 598 of 1986, Additional District Munsifs Court, Tindivanam, have preferred this civil revision petition against the order passed by the Court below, holding that the partition deed dated 111. 1953 is admissible in evidence for collateral purposes. In order to appreciate the circumstances giving rise to this question, it is necessary to very briefly refer to the facts. According to the case of the petitioners, one Vaithyalinga Mudaliar (fifth defendant in the suit) was the owner of the A and B schedule properties in the suit. On 21. 1984, a document of exchange was executed between Vaithylinga and another Palani (not a party to the suit) in and by which the A schedule properties were to be taken by Palani and the properties belonging to Palani were to be taken by the fifth defendant. Palani is stated to have sold on 112. 1985 the properties obtained by him under the deed of exchange viz. A schedule properties in the suit to the first plaintiff in O.S. No.598 of 1986, who died on 12. 1989 and whose legal representatives are the petitioners herein. Similarly, on 12. 1984, Vaithylinga is stated to have sold the B schedule properties to the second plaintiff in the suit represented by the guardian, deceased first plaintiff, Alleging that defendants 1 to 4 in the suit attempted to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of A and B schedule properties by the petitioners on 19. 1986, the petitioners instituted the suit O.S.No.598 of 1986 praying for declaration of title to the A schedule properties in the plaintiffs and the B schedule properties in the second plaintiff and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession and enjoyment. To that suit, Vaithylinga was impleaded as proforma fifth defendant. In the written statement filed by the fourth defendant, she put forward the plea that A and B schedule properties did not belong to Vaithylinga, fifth defendant in the suit. She also denied the exchange on 21. 1984 between the fifth defendant and another Palani. According to her case, the properties were owned by one Rajarathinam, who died about 35 years ago and his wife was one Thayyalnayagi and they had three sons and a daughter, viz. Vaithylinga, Pooniah, Palani and Pattammal. The fourth defendant in the suit is the daughter of Pattammal and according to her, on 111. 1953, a partition was entered into among Vaithylinga, Pooniah and Palani and the suit properties were allotted for the maintenance of Thayyalnayagi during her lifetime and were to be divided amongst the sons after her life time. Stating that despite the arrangement so made, Thayyalnayagi was being looked after by her daughter Pattammal and she was also in possession of the properties for more than the statutory period and that, on 12. 1985, she executed the settlement deed in favour of her daughter (fourth defendant in the suit) which was also attested by Ponniah, the respondents disputed the title of the petitioners to the suit properties. In addition, it was also pleaded that the sale dated 112. 1985 by Palani with reference to A schedule properties was a sham and nominal transaction and, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief in the suit.

2. It is necessary at this stage to refer to the interlocutory proceedings pending suit. In I.A.No.1025 of 1986, the plaintiffs in O.S.No.598 of 1986 prayed for a temporary injunction, restraining the respondents herein from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit properties during the pendency of the suit. That application was resisted by the respondents on the ground that they were in possession of the suit properties and that no case was made out for granting an injunction as prayed for by the petitioners. During the course of the enquiry into that application, the respondents filed an unstamped and unregistered partition deed dated 111. 19