IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 04.06.2024 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL C.R.P.(PD).No.4305 of 2022 and C.M.P.No.22626 of 2022 V. Ramesh ... Petitioner/plaintiff vs.

V. Nagaraj ... Respondent/defendant Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order dated 09.11.2022 in I.A.No.2 of 2022 in O.S.No.103 of 2018 on the file of the Principal District Munsif's Court, Kanchipuram.

For Petitioner : Mr. A. E. Ravichandran For Respondent : Mr. S. L. Sudarsanan

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred as against the order passed in I.A.No.2 of 2022 in O.S.No.103 of 2018 on the file of the Principal District Munsif's Court, Kanchipuram, wherein, the respondent herein has filed a petition before the Trial Court, to reject the unregistered Sale deed, dated

08.02.1999 and the same was allowed.

2. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent therein has preferred this Civil Revision Petition.

3. The brief facts of the petition filed by the petitioner before the Trial Court are as follows:

The petitioner is the defendant in the suit and the main suit was filed by the respondent who is brother of the petitioner for relief of permanent injunction. The petitioner/defendant filed written statement on 22.10.2018. The respondent/plaintiff, along with the plaint has filed two documents as Document Nos.3 and 4, dated 11.09.1998, the Cancellation of Mortgage deed and unregistered Sale deed, dated 08.02.1999. The above said documents are inadmissible in the eye of law. At the time of trial, the respondent/plaintiff wanted to mark the said unregistered Sale deed and the same was objected, since it was unregistered document. The said document cannot be looked into for collateral purpose. Therefore, he filed a petition under order XIII Rule 3 of C.P.C for rejection of inadmissible document.

4. The gist of counter filed by the respondent are as follows:

The respondent being the plaintiff has filed a suit for relief of permanent Injunction and he is the owner of the suit property in pursuance of the registered Sale deed, dated 11.04.1990. Out of income of the respondent/plaintiff, the suit property was purchased by him for valuable consideration. But on instigation of his parents, the petitioner/defendant's name was added because, he was minor at that time. The respondent/plaintiff only discharged the mortgage loan for purchase of property. While so, in the year 1999, the mother of the petitioner and the respondent, namely, Thulasiammal has sold the minor defendant's half share of property to this respondent/plaintiff for valuable consideration through unregistered Sale deed. Eventhough entire consideration was paid by the respondent/plaintiff, but the said Thulasiammal, evading registration by one and then pretext. Bonafide believe words of the mother Thulasiammal, this respondent has not insisting immediate registration of Sale deed. In pursuance of the Sale deed, this respondent/plaintiff becomes absolute owner of the suit property and enjoying absolutely. The said unregistered Sale deed was produced as document before the Trial Court and the petitioner/defendant had raised objection for marking of unregistered document. The respondent/plaintiff did not seek relief of declaration in pursuance of the unregistered Sale deed and the said document is only to show his absolute possession of the property. It is pertinent to note that at the time of numbering the suit itself, the Trial Court has directed to pay the stamp duty, penalty in respect of unregistered Sale deed and this respondent/plaintiff has also paid the stamp duty, penalty as per the directions of the Court. Therefore, the said document can be received for collateral purpose as per the Proviso of Section 49 of the Registration Act. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. Before the Trial Court, no oral or documentary evidence adduced on both sides. After hearing both sides, the Trial Co