Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 3738 (MAD)

Sundarambal & Others v. Panneerselvam & Another

2008-10-14

V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH

body2008
Judgment :- This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the plaintiffs against the order dated 11.06.2007 made in I.A.No.483 of 2007 in O.S.400 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Tindivanam dismissing the interim application filed by the plaintiff to reject Exs.B.5 to 13 Lease Deeds entered into between the parties for indefinite period, on the ground that correct stamp duty and penalty were not paid and they are unregistered and not admissible in evidence. 2. The brief facts of the case put forth by the respective parties before the trial Court are as follows:- .(a) According to the plaintiff, Exs.B5 to B13 are Lease Deeds; the lease was for residential purpose and not for agricultural purpose; lease was for indefinite period; the rental was on monthly basis; thus requisite Stamp Duty i.e. annual rent for 10 years is to be paid; the lease deeds are not admissible in evidence and in order to accept the same in evidence necessary Stamp Duty Penalty has to be paid; and in the absence of registration and on account of insufficient stamp duty and non payment of stamp duty penalty, those documents are inadmissible in evidence. .(b) According to the defendants the deeds were sufficiently stamped; the lease was on monthly basis and therefore, those documents attract no stamp duty penalty; there is no bar to admit those documents in evidence; and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 3. The trial Court after having considered the issue of payment of stamp duty and penalty, in its order dated 11.06.2007 held that Exs.B.5 to 13 are properly stamped and had refused to reject those documents. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner/plaintiff preferred the present civil revision petition. 4. Heard both Ms.N.Mala, learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioners and Mr.R.Sunil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the trial Court has erred in dismissing the petition filed by the plaintiff which is against all cannons of law. 4. Heard both Ms.N.Mala, learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioners and Mr.R.Sunil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the trial Court has erred in dismissing the petition filed by the plaintiff which is against all cannons of law. She would further submit that the defendants have relied upon Exs.B.5 to 13 as Lease Deeds for the vacant site in order to prove the tenancy over the suit property and therefore, the stamps affixed on the said document are insufficient and no specific term of lease are found place in those lease deeds viz., Exs.B.5 to 13 and therefore, the lease would be for an indefinite period and in such circumstances, they require registration. Those lease deeds are inadmissible in evidence as per Section 49 of the Registration Act, as they are unregistered. The trial Court had also not seen that the stamps were not affixed as per Section 35 of the Stamp Act and without venturing into the issue of the effect of non registration of the lease deeds, refused to reject Exs.B5 to 13 and thereby committed grave error. 6. Placing reliance on the decisions decisions reported in AIR 1984 SC 143 Satish Chand Makhan and others Vs. Govardhan Das Byas and others and 2007 (3) L.W. 644 T.H.Mohammed Firdous and others vs. Amichand and others, the learned Counsel would urge this Court to interfere with the order of the trial Court and reject those lease deeds as inadmissible in evidence for want of sufficient stamp duty and registration. .7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would on the other hand contend that the trial Court was right in coming to the conclusion that Exs.B.5 to 13 were sufficiently stamped as per the prevalent rate at the time of execution of those documents and even though the lease deeds are unregistered, they are admissible in evidence for collateral purpose for proving the possession. Though the trial Court had not discussed the same, it had rightly dismissed the petition , upon holding the admissibility of Exs.B.5 to 13. Therefore, he would pray for dismissal of the revision petition. 8. I have given my anxious consideration on the submissions made on either side. Though the trial Court had not discussed the same, it had rightly dismissed the petition , upon holding the admissibility of Exs.B.5 to 13. Therefore, he would pray for dismissal of the revision petition. 8. I have given my anxious consideration on the submissions made on either side. On a careful perusal of the order of the trial Court, I could see that the contention regarding the effect of non registration was not discussed by the trial Court. However, the trial Court had dismissed the petition. Whether the decision arrived at by the trial Court is required interference or not is the question to be decided in this revision. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the stamp affixed on the lease deeds viz., Exs.B.5 to 13 are insufficient. On a careful perusal of the order of the trial Court, it could be seen that the stamp duty payable at the relevant period was eight annas ( 50 paise in terms of modern Indian Monetary Unit) and therefore, the same was in order. .9. As far as non registration of those documents is concerned, the judgment reported in 1984 SC 143 Satish Chand Makhan and others Vs. Govardhan Das Byas and others has to be followed, wherein the Supreme Court held thus:- ."The unregistered lease deed cannot also be taken into consideration on the ground that such deed can be admitted in evidence for collateral purpose, invoking proviso to Section 49 of Registration Act, as terms of lease are not a collateral purpose within its meaning." 10. On a careful understanding of the above said decision, it could be seen that the terms of lease are not collateral purpose and therefore, unregistered lease deeds cannot be taken into consideration for admitting the same in the evidence for main purpose. From the written statement it could be seen that the suit property was said to have been allotted to the second defendant along with the first defendant and yet another son by name Kalaiselvan and they were constituting joint family and were leasing out the property to various tenants from the year 1963. The said documents are sought to have been produced into Court for the purpose of proving the possession of the tenants under the defendants 1 and 2. The said documents are sought to have been produced into Court for the purpose of proving the possession of the tenants under the defendants 1 and 2. Those lease deeds have not been produced into Court against the tenants in order to prove the term of lease. However, the trial Court had not gone into the effect of non registration of such deeds, while dismissing the petition filed by the plaintiff seeking rejection of those lease deeds. Therefore, it has become necessary for this Court to set aside the order passed by the trial Court and direct the trial Court for fresh enquiry on the claim of the petitioner in the light of the decision reported in AIR 1984 SC 143 Satish Chand Makhan and others Vs. Govardhan Das Byas and others and with reference to the purpose of production of the lease deeds into Court while letting in evidence and to decide the matter afresh on the point as to whether those lease deeds viz., Exs.B.5 to B.13 sought to be relied upon by the defendant is for the main purpose or collateral purpose. The trial Court is further directed to dispose of the application within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. However, it is made clear that any observation made by this Court for the purpose of disposal of this revision petition shall not influence the mind of the trial Court at the time of trial of the Suit. With these observation, this civil revision petition is ordered. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.