Judgment :- 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decretal order dated 12. 2006 made in I.A. No. 276 of 2006 in O.S. No. 42 of 2001 by the learned District Munsif Court, Thirukalukundram dismissing the I.A., filed by the plaintiff under Order 13, Rule 3, C.P.C. for rejection of unregistered Partition Deed dated 23. 1974 filed by the defendant No.3 on the ground that the said document is inadmissible in evidence. 2. The Suit has been filed by the revision petitioner/plaintiff for declaration, partition and also for incidental reliefs as against the respondents/defendants. During trial, the third defendant had filed a document, namely attested photo copy of partition deed dated 23. 1974 as evidence though which he is claiming right and title over the one forth share of Suit A and B schedule mentioned properties. According to the plaintiff, the alleged partition deed dated 23. 1974 is an unstamped written paper, not a registered document as required under Section 17 of the Registration Act and it is inadmissible under Section 49 of the Registration Act. Therefore the said document cannot be received in evidence. In fact the said document is a forged document wherein the plaintiff has not put his signature and therefore it does not bind on his right over his B Schedule property. Hence the said document has to be rejected as inadmissible to be received in evidence. 3. The third defendant resisted the said Application by fling a counter. The learned District Munsif, Thirukalukundram, on a consideration of the pleadings and submissions of the learned counsel appeared on either side, dismissed the said Application holding that the said document can be marked for collateral purpose and its legal validity can be decided at the time of final disposal of the Suit and therefore the said document can be marked. Further, the plaintiff having filed the Suit for declaration to declare the said document as null and void, he cannot take out the Application to reject the very same document as inadmissible. Further, for the said document, sufficient stamp duty with penalty has been paid into Court deposit and as against which no revision has been preferred by the plaintiff and therefore, the Interlocutory Application is filed only to prolong the litigation. Aggrieved of the same, the present revision is filed by the plaintiff. 4. Further, for the said document, sufficient stamp duty with penalty has been paid into Court deposit and as against which no revision has been preferred by the plaintiff and therefore, the Interlocutory Application is filed only to prolong the litigation. Aggrieved of the same, the present revision is filed by the plaintiff. 4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that any unstamped and unregistered document which needs registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act cannot be looked into even for collateral purpose or can be used in any legal proceedings. In support of his contention the learned counsel relied on the following decisions: .(i) Balakrishnan & another v. Chandrasekharan, 2003 (3) MLJ 45 ; .(ii) Lingappa Gounder v. Palanisamy and others, 2006 (2) CTC 36 : 2006 (1) TLNJ (Civil) 595; (iii) Amudha and others v. K. Jeyaraman and another, 2005 (2) CTC 385 ; .(iv) Pyarijan v. Puttapa & another, 2006 (2) LW 437 ; .(v) R. Deivanai Ammal (died) & Anr. v. G. Meenakshi Ammal and others , 2004 (4) CTC 208 : 2005 (1) LW 343 (DB). 5. In Balakrishnan & another v. Chandrasekharan, 2003 (3) MLJ 45 , this Court held that it is settled law that if the family arrangement is reduced to writing and it purports to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any right, title or interest of any immovable property, it must be properly stamped and duly registered as per Indian Stamps Act and Indian Registration Act. But in the said decision it has been observed that if the family arrangement is stamped, but not registered, it can be looked into for collateral purposes. 6. In Lingappa Gounder v. Palanisamy and others, 2006 (2) CTC 36 : 2006 (1) TLNJ (Civil) 595, this Court again held that interest on immovable properties for more than Rs.100/- are transferable only through a registered document as per Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act. .7. In Amudha and others v. K. Jeyaraman and another , 2005 (2) CTC 385 , this Court held that even the suit property claimed to be purchased out of ancestral nucleus as evidenced by such unregistered document cannot be received in evidence and the defect of non registration cannot be cured by paying penalty. 8. .7. In Amudha and others v. K. Jeyaraman and another , 2005 (2) CTC 385 , this Court held that even the suit property claimed to be purchased out of ancestral nucleus as evidenced by such unregistered document cannot be received in evidence and the defect of non registration cannot be cured by paying penalty. 8. In Pyarijan v. Puttapa & another, 2006 (2) LW 437 , also this Court held that when the document is inadmissible in evidence it cannot be looked into for any purpose and under Section 49 of the Registration Act, no document required by Section 17 or any of the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act to be registered shall be received as evidence of any transaction affecting immovable property, and the same cannot be used in any legal proceedings to bring out indirect effect which it would have if registered. This Court further held that documents which are inadmissible for want of registration may at times be admissible for collateral purpose. A collateral purpose is a purpose other than creating, declaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing a right of immovable property and in this case the purpose of document is for advancement of loan and at the same time creating an interest in the immovable property to enjoy the usufructs for a period of three years, the document being unregistered is inadmissible in evidence of the transaction, affecting the immovable property. 9. In R. Deivanai Ammal (died) & Anr. v. G. Meenakshi Ammal and others, 2004 (4) CTC 208 : 2005 (1) LW 343 (DB), a Division Bench of this Court reiterated that if document of family arrangement is reduced to writing, it purports to create, declare/extinguish right, title or interest of the properties and in such circumstances it must be properly stamped and duly registered as per the Stamp Act and Registration Act. 10. In Bondar Singh v. Nihal Singh, 2003 (2) CTC 635 : 2004 (1) LW 706, 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. 10. In Bondar Singh v. Nihal Singh, 2003 (2) CTC 635 : 2004 (1) LW 706, 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 ors. 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 Patna 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, AIR 1971 SC 1070 , deals with Sections 35 and 36 of the Stamp Act in detail whereas the decision reported in Bondar Singh v. Nihal Singh, 2003 (2) CTC 635 : 2004 (1) LW 706, as well as the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Venugopal @ Alagarsamy and ors. v. Bajanai Alagarsamy and another, 2004 (3) MLJ 362 , Sections 35 and 36 of the Stamp Act has not been discussed at all. Therefore, when there is a 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 judgments which does not discuss about such controversy. 13. However, in Tmt. Indirani v. Seetharaman, 2005 (4) MLJ 337 , which is elaborate on the point of admissibly, a learned Single Judge of this held as follows: “14. 13. However, in Tmt. Indirani v. Seetharaman, 2005 (4) MLJ 337 , which is elaborate on the point of admissibly, a learned Single Judge of this held as follows: “14. In Bondar Singh and others v. Nihal Singh and others, 2004 (1) LW 706 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. If Section 35 of the Stamp Act was considered .and the wordi ng 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 35, 32, 36 Registration Act, Section 49, etc. In the absence of any discussion about the payment of stamp duty and penalty, mere o bservation that the document could be looked into, for collateral purposes, alone, is not sufficient to allow all the documents unstamped, which required stamp duty, should be admitted in evidence, thereby offending 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 , 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. .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 guidelines 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 if 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. 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, as 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. Then, it contemplates what are the further proceedings to be initiated under Section 38 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 At, 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 tamp 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 person 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. 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, 2001 (3) SCC 1 , regarding the stamp duty and penalty, the document cannot be admitted in evidence, as if it 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 requires 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 expressed by my Learned Brother M. Thanickachalam, J. Though the judgment of the Supreme Court relied on by the revision petitioner in AC. Lakshmipathy & Anr. v. A.M. Chakrapani Reddiar and 6 Ors., 2001 (1) CTC 112 , still, the judgment of this Court in Tmt. 14. I am in agreement with the views expressed by my Learned Brother M. Thanickachalam, J. Though the judgment of the Supreme Court relied on by the revision petitioner in AC. Lakshmipathy & Anr. v. A.M. Chakrapani Reddiar and 6 Ors., 2001 (1) CTC 112 , still, the judgment of this Court in Tmt. Indirani v. Seetharaman, 2005 (4) MLJ 337 , relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent, 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, because the point is not which is the earlier or later, but the point is which judgment discusses the point in issue directly involved in the particular case elaborately and accurately. 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 document in issue was already received by the Trial Court after passing an order in I.A. No.342 of 2005 dated 22. 2006 and the said order was passed on merits after hearing both the parties elaborately and by following the decisions of this Courts and against which no revision has been preferred by the plaintiff. It is also to be seen that pursuant to the said order, the document in issue was sent for impounding and this respondent has also paid penalty. Therefore, the revision petitioner/plaintiff having acquiesced of the knowledge of the same cannot challenge the very same document by way of filing another Application under a different caption namely for rejection of the document. When he has waived his right to challenge the order granting permission to receive the documents in issue and 32 other documents, he is estopped from questioning the same by way of filing another Application. 16. Further, when the revision petitioner amended the plaint to the effect for a declaration to declare the partition deed dated 23. 1974 as null and void and unenforceable and when issues have been framed accordingly, the Trial Court. 17. Moreover, the revision petitioner is estopped from questioning the partition as he himself has changed the patta in his name for the lands allotted to his share pursuant to the said partition. 1974 as null and void and unenforceable and when issues have been framed accordingly, the Trial Court. 17. Moreover, the revision petitioner is estopped from questioning the partition as he himself has changed the patta in his name for the lands allotted to his share pursuant to the said partition. The partition was made in the year 1974 and the parties to the partition including the revision petitioner have acted upon the same and the second and third respondents and their deceased father have dealt with their respective shares by way of sale and settlement. Though the revision petitioner denies that he has not put up his signatures in the document, unless the said document is examined the same cannot be gone into. The Trial Court also allowed to mark the document only for collateral purpose. 18. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court. In the result, the CRP is dismissed. Consequently, connected M.P is also dismissed. No costs.