9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 1507X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/D2 that the above sale deed has to be impounded for paying stamp duty and penalty and to be registered and marked, is not sustainable. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order of the trial Court - The Civil Revision is liable to be dismissed. - G. CHOCKALINGAM, J. For the Appellant : R. Rajaramani For the Respondent : P. Seshadri ORDER G. CHOCKALINGAM, J. 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 10.09.2012 in I.A. No. 1432 of 2012 in O.S. No. 250 of 2009 passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Tindivanam, in and by which, the application filed by the revision petitioner/second defendant to impound the unregistered sale deed, dated 05. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... possession and in respect of boundaries. 17. Even though, under the document the property is said to have been conveyed, the document could still be looked into for the collateral purpose of ascertaining possession and also the boundaries of the property of the First Defendant. The impugned order directing the reception of the document does not suffer from any perversity, warranting interference and exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.... (b) 2010 (1) CTC 27 (Madras High Court) (Kalaivani @ Devasena v. J. Ramu): 16. In Mayilu Ammal and others v. Renganathan, 2005 (5) CTC 424, this Court relying on the ratio laid down in Bondar Singh v. Nihal Singh, 2003 (2) CTC 635 (SC) : 2003 (4) SCC 161, held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and 1997 (2) CTC 595 (Ruckmangathan v. Ramalingam) in support of his submission that such unregistered document cannot be marked even for collateral purpose. But, this Court, in the recent decisions reported in 2014 (3) MWN (Civil) 578 (Minor Ravi Bharathi v. P. Balasubramani and another) and 2014 (6) CTC 773 : 2014 (5) LW 59 : 2014 (7) MLJ 861 (R. Munusamy v. G. Krishtappillai and 2 others), followed the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in 2003 (2) CTC 635 (SC) : AIR 2003 SC 1905 : 2003 (2) MLJ 122 : 2004 (1) LW 706 (SC) (Bondar Singh and others v. Nihal Singh) (cited supra), now cited by the learned counsel for the respondent, wherein, the Honourable Supreme Court, while considering the said issue, observed as follows in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reported in 2001 (1) LW 257 (Lakshmipathy A.C. v. A.M. Chakrapani Reddiar and others), wherein, the Division Bench observed as follows: 27. Courts have interpreted the terms any purpose as for each and every purpose including collateral purposes or in other words such, document is inadmissible and such a document cannot be looked into for any purpose. A Division Bench of this Court in 1937 (2) MLJ 805 : 1938 AIR (Mad) 75) : 1937 (46) LW 692 (Pentapatti Nageswara Rao v. Moka Narayanamurthi and another), ruled thus: The section itself, in my opinion, provides a complete answer to the petitioner's case. If an unstamped document cannot be admitted for any purpose, it must mean, if the words are to be given their ordinary and plain meaning t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f such evidence is admitted, it amount to acting on the unstamped document, which is against Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act. (ILR 35 Madras 386), (AIR 1971 SC 1070). .... 38. From the above, we are inclined to hold that the document in question was executed with the intention that the document itself should constitute the sole repository as a document of title. When that is so, inasmuch as the document has not been stamped or registered, it cannot be looked into for any purpose. 39. The next question is whether in view of the fact that the appellant himself produced the document before Court along with the plaint, is it be taken that the appellant cannot object to for the admission of the document, so also to look into the contents of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, or shall be acted upon, registered or authenticated by any such person or by any public officer unless such instrument is duly stamped: Provided that any such instrument not being an instrument chargeable with a duty not exceeding ten naye paise only or a bill of exchange or promissory note, shall, subject to all just exceptions, be admitted in evidence on payment of the duty with which the same is chargeable, or, in the case of an instrument insufficiently stamped, of the amount required to make up such duty, together with a penalty of five rupees, or, when ten times the amount of the proper duty or deficient portion thereof exceeds five rupees, of a sum equal to ten times such duty or portion.... Section 17 of the Registration Act: Doc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
