BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08/03/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.RAJESWARAN C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.503 of 2009 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2009 1.K.Soundararajan 2.Kamali @ Parvathi .. Petitioners Vs. 1.A.Rajasekar 2.K.Anantaraj .. Respondents Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.1/08 in O.S.No.15/2007 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Kumbakonam dated 15.10.2008. !For Petitioners ... Mr.V.K.Vijayaraghavan ^For Respondents ... Mr.K.Govindarajan for R1 No appearance for R2 :ORDER
The Revision Petitioners have filed the above Revision against the order
dated 15.10.2008 made in I.A. No.1 of 2008 in O.S.No.15 of 2007 passed by the
learned Additional Sub Judge, Kumbakonam.
2.The defendants 2 and 3 in O.S.No.15 of 2007 are the Revision Petitioners
before this Court.
3. O.S.No.15 of 2007 has been filed by the plaintiff/ the first respondent
herein for partition and other reliefs. Written statement was filed by the
second defendant which was adopted by the third defendant and the matter is
being contested. Their case is that the document dated 03.09.1996 is an evidence
of partition and hence the document requires to be adequately stamped.
4. Pending the suit, the defendants 2 and 3 / petitioners herein filed an
application in Application No.1 of 2008 for referring the Document dated
03.09.1996 to the Revenue Divisional Officer for fixation of adequate stamp duty
penalty for collection of the same.
5. An objection was raised by the plaintiff that there was no partition in
the family and the document dated 03.09.1996 was inadmissible in evidence.
Moreover, the plaintiff, took a view that the signature in the document was
forged. Further the document is not stamped and unregistered too.
6. On that objection, the learned Judge dismissed the petition. Aggrieved
against that, the present Revision has been filed by the defendants 2 and 3.
7. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and also
the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent / plaintiff. I have also
gone through the documents available on record.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the Lower Court
failed to appreciate the fact that the document was objected to is an unstamped
and unregistered one and the same was inadmissible in evidence. He referred to
the provisions of the Stamp Act which requires that when a document is
insufficiently stamped, for receiving the document in evidence, adequate stamp
duty has to be paid. Hence appropriate steps were taken by filing an
application, whereas according to him, the Trial Court, without appreciating the
fact and the law, dismissed the application.
9. Though the learned counsel for the first respondent / plaintiff
objected to the submissions made on the side of the petitioners, and supported
the order passed by the trial Court, which is now challenged before this Court,
I find force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
In my considered view, if a party filing the document wants it to be admitted in
evidence, then only the Court shall collect the stamp duty and penalty and admit
it in evidence. But if the party, instead of requiring the document to be
admitted in evidence merely wants to send it to the authority to be dealt with
under the provisions of the Act, in such an event, the Court has no option but
to send it to the authority. Having not done that, the learned Judge has
disregarded the clear provision of law.
10. Therefore, I am inclined to set aside the order dated 15.10.2008 made
in I.A.No.1 of 2008 in O.S.No.15 of 2007 and direct the Lower Court to send the
document dated 03.09.1996 to the Revenue Divisional Officer for fixation of
adequate stamp duty and penalty for collection of the same immediately. This
formality should be complied with immediately so that the trial can commence
soon. This procedure should be completed within two months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order, both by the Lower Court and the Revenue
Divisional Officer.
11. The plaintiff is at liberty to raise all his objections at the
appropriate time regarding the admissibility of the document which is sought to
be marked.
12.The Civil Revision Petition is therefore allowed on the above terms. No
costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
KM
To
The Additional Subordinate Judge,
Kumbakonam.