IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 28.09.2010
Coram
The Honourable Mr.Justice S.RAJESWARAN
C.R.P.(PD)No.4035 of 2007
and
M.P.No.1 of 2007
K.Munirathinam Naidu ... Petitioner
Vs.
G.Balaraman ... Respondent
Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the Fair order and Decretal order dated 28.02.2007 made in I.A.No.172 of 2007 in O.S.No.198 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruvallur and register the Document Ex.R8.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.D.N.Vimalanathan
For Respondent : Mr.B.Kumarasamy
O R D E R
The Plaintiff in O.S.No.198 of 2006 is the revision petitioner before this Court.
2. O.S.No.198 of 2006 has been filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Pending suit the plaintiff filed an I.A.No.172 of 2007 under Order 13 Rule 3 of C.P.C. to reject the Unregistered Lease Deed filed by the defendant which is inadmissible in evidence and also not rectificable even by affixing penalty stamp duty vide 2006 (5) CTC 681 (Duraisami Naidu and others Vs. C.Ramakrishnan and others). A counter was filed on behalf of the defendant wherein it was stated that plaintiff was given sufficient opportunity to file counter before marking the documents. As it was not done, the petition was allowed ex-parte and the document was marked. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of I.A.
3. The trial Court by order dated 28.02.2007 relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2001 (3) SCC 1 (Bippin Shantilal Panchal vs. State of Gujarath and another), dismissed the same. Aggrieved by the same, the above C.R.P. has been filed by the plaintiff under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. I have also gone through the documents available on record and the judgments referred to.
5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the trial Court has committed an illegality in dismissing the I.A.No.172 of 2007 filed by the plaintiff and the same is contrary to the judgment of this Court reported in 2006 (5) CTC 681 (cited supra). He further pointed out that even in the Supreme Court judgment relied on by the trial Court, it was specifically stated that the judgment would not apply to cases wherein deficiency of stamp duty of a document was in question. He relied on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in AIR 1967 Andhra Pradesh 331 (Chinta Venkata Jagannatha Rao vs. Dola Narannaidu and others) besides this High Court judgment reported in 2006 (5) CTC 681 (cited supra).
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent relying on the judgment of this Court reported in 2007 (3) TLNJ 18 (Civil) (Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Premlata Shukla and others) and 2005 (5) CTC 102 (Gurusamy and others vs. Santhanam), submitted that no grave illegality causing great prejudice to the revision petitioner occurred and therefore the revision itself is not maintainable. Even otherwise, he submits that once a document was marked without any objection by the other side, the same cannot be objected to later on.
7. I have considered the rival submissions carefully.
8. It is trite law that a document which requires compulsory registration cannot be admitted as evidence in a Court of law. However, it is equally true that the same could be relied on by the Court for collateral purposes, if the document is adequately stamped. Therefore there is no total bar for admitting an unregistered document provided it is relied on only for collateral purposes.
9. In the present case, a lease deed which requires compulsory registration which was marked as Exhibit after the deficiency in stamp duty was made good with penalty. Thereafter I.A.No.172 of 2007 was filed by the plaintiff to reject the same by relying on this Court judgment reported in 2006 (5) CTC 681 (cited supra).
10. In that judgment also the learned Judge of this Court has held that an unregistered lease deed for a period more than 1 year is inadmissible in evidence.
11. In AIR 1967 Andhra Pradesh 331 (cited supra), the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that subsequent payment of stamp duty and penalty could remove disability of being unstamped document, but document being lease requires registration and if not registered could not be admitted in evidence.
12. It is true that both the above judgments would support the case of the petitioner to some extent but they are not the authorities to state that an unregistered lease deed could not be relied even for collateral purposes.
13. In 2007 (3) TLNJ 18 (Civil) (cited supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a party objecting to the admissibility of document must raise its objection at the appropriate time.
14. This judgment is not helpful to the case of the defendant because the facts are entirely different.
15. In 2005 (5) CTC 102 (cited supra) this Court held that High Court is empowered to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India when gross failure of justice is occassioned and merely because a document is marked as Exhibit, it will not take away the right of the other party to object to its admissibility.
16. The trial Court while dismising the I.A., held that the validity and genuiness of the document has to be decided at the time of trial stage.
S.RAJESWARAN
cse
17. The trial Courts’ reliance of Supreme Court is certainly misplaced as that judgment will not apply wherein the stamp duty of document is in question. Though the reasoning is also not very sound still I find no reason to intefere with the same.
18. The document’s deficiency in stamp duty had been made good which is not in dispute. In such circumstances, the lease deed marked as R8 could be looked into for collateral purpose only and not otherwise.
19. With the above observation, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
28.09.2010
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
cse
To
The District Munsif Court,
Tiruvallur
Pre-delivery order made in
C.R.P.(PD)No.4035 of 2007
and
M.P.No.1 of 2007