Judgment :- Aggrieved over the fair and decretal order dated 21.6.2005 made in I.A. No. 108 of 2005 in O.S. No. 924 of 2004 on the file of the First Additional District Munsif, Bhavani, this civil revision petition is filed. 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: The respondents 1 to 3 have filed the said suit claiming for partition and separate posses­sion of 5/12 shares of the suit. 3. Pending suit, the petitioner and defen­dants 4 and 5 have filed an I.A. No. 108 of 2005 to endorse on the document dated 27.8.1981 (Partition Agreement) as an admitted docu­ment in evidence in the suit. The respondents/ plaintiffs opposed the said petition contending that the third defendant in his chief- examina­tion has specifically called the document as Agreement of Partition Settlement and thus it has to be registered with necessary stamp duty. 4. The learned Additional District Munsif, Bhavani, on consideration of the averments and the respective submissions made by the counsel appeared on either side dismissed the Interlocutory Application holding that the document has not been written in proper manner and has also not been properly stamped and therefore it could not be taken into consider­ation even for collateral purpose. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would contend that the trial Court ought to have gone into the issue regard­ing the nature of the transaction, and its valid­ity thereof at the time of admitting the document, those issues can be decided only af­ter admitting the documents in the evidence. The trial Court failed to note the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat AIR 2001 SC 11578 : (2001) 3 SCC 1 would squarely apply to the facts of the present case. 6. In Penatapati Nageswara Rao v. Moka Narayanamurthi and Another (1937) 2 MLJ 805 , a Division Bench of this Court held that the improperly stamped document could not be used to prove a collateral purpose, namely, the acknowledgement of liability on previous notes. 7. In Ram Rattan v. Parma Nand AIR 1946 PC 51 : (1946) 1 MLJ 295 the Privy Council held that the words `for any purpose' in Sec­tion 35 of the Stamp Act, should be given their natural meaning and effect and would include a collateral purpose. 7. In Ram Rattan v. Parma Nand AIR 1946 PC 51 : (1946) 1 MLJ 295 the Privy Council held that the words `for any purpose' in Sec­tion 35 of the Stamp Act, should be given their natural meaning and effect and would include a collateral purpose. Where an unstamped doc­ument is admitted in proof of some collateral matter, it is certainly admitted in evidence for that purpose which the statute has prohibited. Consequently, an unstamped partition deed cannot be used to corroborate the oral evidence for the purposes of determining even the factum of partition as distinct from its terms. 8. In Jupudi v. Pulavarthi AIR 1971 SC 1070 : (1971) 1 SCC 545 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in view of Sections 35 and 36, secondary evidence by way of oral evidence or copy of document insufficiently stamped is not admissible in a suit even though objection to its admissibility cannot be taken under the Evidence Act. 9. In AC. Lakshmipathy and Another v. A.M. Chakrapani Reddiar and 5 Others, 2001 (1) CTC 112 : (2001) 1 MLJ 1 a Division Bench of this Court held that un-stamped doc­uments if required to be stamped but not so stamped cannot be looked into for any purpose including collateral purpose. 10. However, in a judgment of the Apex Court reported in Bonder Singh v. Nihal Singh 2004 (1) LW 706 : (2003) 2 MLJ 122, wherein Their Lordships have held that "Under the law, a sale deed is required to be properly stamped and registered before it can convey title to the vendee. However, legal position is clear law that a document like the sale deed in the pres­ent case, even though not admissible in evi­dence, can be looked into for collateral purposes." The learned counsel also relied on the Division Bench of this Court reported in Venugopal @ Alagarsamy and Others v. Bajanai Alagarsamy and Another (2004) 3 MLJ 362 wherein this Court held that "though unregistered documents are inadmissible in evidence, they may be considered for collat­eral purpose." 11. In Amar Singh Yadav v. Shanthi Devi AIR 1987 Pat. In Amar Singh Yadav v. Shanthi Devi AIR 1987 Pat. 191 (FB), a Full Bench of the Patna High Court held that where there is a di­rect conflict between two decisions of the Su­preme Court by co-equal Benches, the High Court must follow the judgment which states the law more elaborately and accurately and the question whether the decision is earlier or later, is not the criteria. 12. As far as this case is concerned, the de­cision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Jupudi v. Pulavarthi (supra) deals with Sec­tion 35 and 36 of the Stamp Act in detail whereas the decision reported in Bonder Singh v. Nihal Singh (supra), as well as the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Venugopal @ Alagarsamy and Others v. Bajanai Alagarsamy and Another (supra) Sections 35 and 36 of the Stamp Act has not been discussed at all. Therefore, when there are conflicting judgments by the two co-equal Benches, the judgment, of the larger Bench which directly deals with in detail about the controversy, re­garding the Stamp Act has to be preferred than the other judgment which does not discuss about such controversy. 13. However, in Tmt. Indirani v. Seetharaman, (2005) 4 MLJ 337 which is the latest among the cited decisions, this Court held as follows (pp. 340 to 342 of MLJ): “14. In Bondar Singh and Others v. Nihal Singh and Others (2004) 1 LW 706: (2003) 2 MLJ 122 the Apex Court has observed: "Under the law, a sale deed is required to be properly stamped and registered before it can convey title to the vendee. However, legal position is clear law that a document like the sale deed in the present case, even though not admissible in evidence, can be looked into for collateral purposes." 15. This observation guided the learned trial Judge to admit the documents, in question, in evidence, though they are unstamped. In the case involved in the above decision also, the documents ought to be relied on was an unregistered and unstamped sale deed. But, the same was admitted, in evidence, for collateral purposes. Though such an observa­tion has been made, the Hon'ble Apex Court has not considered the effect of Section 35 of the Stamp Act. In the case involved in the above decision also, the documents ought to be relied on was an unregistered and unstamped sale deed. But, the same was admitted, in evidence, for collateral purposes. Though such an observa­tion has been made, the Hon'ble Apex Court has not considered the effect of Section 35 of the Stamp Act. If Section 35 of the Stamp Act was considered and the wording stated therein, viz., `for any purpose', is ignored, then, if it is said, it can be taken as the law de­clared by the Apex Court, which is binding upon the Courts below throughout the breadth and length of this country. As seen from the above decision, nowhere it is dis­cussed about the effect of Section 35 of the Stamp Act, though in the head-note, the publishers have stated, Stamp Act, Sections E35 (sic), 32, 36 Registration Act, 49, etc. In the absence of any discussion about the pay­ment of stamp duty and penalty, mere observation that the document could be looked into for collateral purposes, alone, is not sufficient to allow all the documents un stamped, which required stamp duty, should be admitted in evidence, thereby of-fending the statute, viz., in this case Section 35 of the Stamp Act. In this context, it is use­ful to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat and Another AIR 2001 SC 1158 : (2001) 3 SCC 1 and Chilakuri Gangulappa v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalle and Another, (2001) 2 MLJ 33(SC). 16. In the first decision, the objection raised regarding the admissibility of a document came before the Apex Court, for consider­ation. The Apex Court in a way, criticised the archaic practice and prescribed guide-lines as to how the documents should be ad­mitted in evidence, despite the objection raised by the other side. It is observed that: "Whenever an objection is raised during ev­idence taking stage regarding the admissi­bility of any material or item of oral evidence, the trial Court can make a note of such objection and mark the objected docu­ments tentatively as an exhibit in the case (or record the objected part of the oral evi­dence) subject to such objections to be de­cided at the last stage in the final judgment. If the Court finds at the final stage that the objection so raised is sustainable, the Judge or Magistrate can keep such evidence ex­cluded from consideration. In our view, there is no illegality in adopting such a course. However, we make it clear that i f the objection relates to deficiency of stamp duty of a document, the Court has to decide the objection before proceeding further. For all other objections, the procedure sug­gested above can be followed." 17. The last portion of the above observa­tion makes it clear that if the objection re­lates to deficiency of stamp duty of a document, the Court has to decide the objec­tion before proceeding further. Therefore, in this case, the trial Court should have con­sidered, whether the documents require stamp duty and penalty or not, before allow­ing the documents to be admitted, in evi­dence, for collateral purposes, which was not followed. Therefore, I am unable to af­fix my seal of approval as such, to the order passed by the trial Court, which requires modification. 18. In the second case, viz., Chilakuri Gangulappa v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanpalle and Another (2000) 2 MLJ 33, the Apex Court considering Section 38 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and the fact un­der what circumstances, an insufficiently stamped document could be admitted in evi­dence, has observed that it is the duty of the Court, at the first instance, that if the Court finds that the instrument is insufficiently stamped, it should call upon the party, as to whether he would remit the deficient por­tion of the stamp duty together with a pen­alty, amounting to ten times the deficiency, and in the case if the party agrees to remit the said amount, the Court has to proceed with trial, after admitting the document in evi­dence. The word, "it" contemplates what are the further proceedings to be initiated under Section 3 8 of the Stamp Act etc. In the case involved in the above decision also, an insufficiently stamped document came to the consideration of the Apex Court. The word, "it" contemplates what are the further proceedings to be initiated under Section 3 8 of the Stamp Act etc. In the case involved in the above decision also, an insufficiently stamped document came to the consideration of the Apex Court. If the Apex Court was of the view that un-stamped or unregistered documents are, automatically, to be admitted in evidence, without reference to Section 35 of the In­dian Stamp Act, then the Apex Court would not have observed that the Court should call upon the party to remit the deficient portion of the stamp duty together with a penalty, amounting to ten times the deficient or even the lesser penalty. Since the Apex Court was conscious about Section 35 of the Stamp Act, while considering Section 38, it is observed on the basis of Section 38(1) of the Stamp Act: "It is clear from the first sub-section ex­tracted above that the Court has a power to admit the document in evidence if the party producing the same would pay the stamp duty together with a penalty amounting to ten times the deficiency of the stamp duty. When the Court chooses to admit the docu­ment on compliance of such condition, the Court need forward only a copy of the docu­ment to the Collector, together with the amount collected from the party for taking adjudicatory steps. Thus, showing, if the party fails to pay the stamp duty and penalty, the document is not to be admitted in evidence, in view of the embargo contemplated under Section 35 of the Stamp Act. This ruling also, supports Section 35 of the Stamp Act, that no docu­ment shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose, unless it is properly stamped, and in case, if it is not properly stamped, without payment of stamp duty and penalty and that is the reason, we find the words in Section 38(1) of the Stamp Act that 'when the per-son impounding an instrument in evidence, upon payment of a penalty, as provided by Section 35 or of duty as provided by Section 37...', thereby confirming, without pay­ment of stamp duty and penalty, no docu­ment shall be admitted in evidence." 20. There cannot be any dispute, as long as Section 35 of the Stamp Act is available in the statute that the same is to be applied for all the instruments, which require stamp duty. There cannot be any dispute, as long as Section 35 of the Stamp Act is available in the statute that the same is to be applied for all the instruments, which require stamp duty. This being the position, unless a find­ing is given as observed by the three-Judges Bench of the Apex Court, in Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat AIR 2001 SC 1158 : (2001) 3 SCC 1 , regarding the stamp duty and penalty, the document cannot be admitted in evidence, as if can be looked into for collateral purpose. No doubt, it is true, a document, which is unregistered or unstamped can be looked into for collateral purpose, provided, provisos to Section 35 of the Stamp Act are complied with, and not otherwise. The above position of law was not considered properly by the trial Court and therefore, the order of the trial Court re-quires modification, in my considered opin­ion, in view of the admitted position that the documents in question, require stamp duty and penalty". 14. I am in agreement with the views ex-pressed by Learned Brother M. THANIKACHALAM, J. Though the judgment of the Supreme Court was relied on in the order of the lower Court in AC. Lakshmipathy and Another v. A.M. Chakrapani Reddiar and 6 Oth­ers (supra), still, the judgment of this Court in Tmt. Indirani v. Seetharaman (supra), which is supported by several decisions of the Apex Court as relied on by the learned single Judge in the said decision has to be followed in the particular case. 15. Therefore, it is clear that no document shall be admitted in evidence if it is not prop­erly stamped, and if already not stamped, then stamp duty should be paid with penalty as prescribed by the Authority. As far as the present case is concerned, the plaintiffs in their coun­ter in the Interlocutory Application have stated that the third defendant in his chief-examina­tion has specifically called the document as Agreement Partition Settlement and thus it has to be registered with necessary stamp duty. 16. In the absence of payment of necessary stamp duty, the document should not be marked even for collateral purpose. 17. In the result, this civil revision petition is dismissed. 16. In the absence of payment of necessary stamp duty, the document should not be marked even for collateral purpose. 17. In the result, this civil revision petition is dismissed. However the trial Court is directed to ascertain stamp duty and penalty pay-able upon the disputed document, then call upon the party who wants to rely on the docu­ment, to pay the stamp duty and penalty, and then on payment of stamp duty and penalty, admit the document in evidence, whether it is for collateral purpose or otherwise, which could be decided at the later stage while hear­ing the case as guided by the Apex Court in Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat and Another (supra). Consequently, con­nected C.M.P. No. 12080 of 2005 and V.C.M.P. No. 152 of 2006 are also dismissed. No costs.