Judgment :- 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Order dated 14. 2005 made in O.S.No.13 of 2004 on the file of the District Judge, Perambalur. 2. Theplaintiffs in O.S.No.13 of 2004 are the revision petitioner herein. 3. O.S.No.13 of 2004 has been filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants/respondents herein for passing a preliminary decree declaring that the plaintiffs are entitled to 5/6th share in ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties, then pass a final decree directing division of ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties, by metes and bounds and allot separate properties for the plaintiffs 5/6th share in ‘A’ schedule and 5/18th share in ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties and for rendition of accounts. Written statement was filed by the first defendant as the first defendant was sole and exclusive owner of the properties described in Plaint ‘A’ and ‘C’ schedule properties. Further, it was a case of the first defendant that he only purchased this properties with his own funds. Thus, the Suit was hotly contested. During the trial of the Suit, a document styled as memo of partial Partition in the Hindu undivided family of J. Ramu Chettiyar, Ariyalur dated 33. 1973 was sought to be marked through P.W.1. In the Plaint, it was contended that there was a Partial Partition in March 1973, in which one Mr. Krishnan who was one other than the husband of the first plaintiff and father of the second plaintiff was allotted ‘A’ schedule properties which are situated in Ariyalur town and at the time of partial partition, the said Krishnan was minor. After the partial partition, the said Krishnan was minor. After the partial partition was effected, a partial partition list dated 33. 1973 was prepared and the first defendant/first respondent herein also signed on behalf of his then minor sons which included Krishnan as well as the third defendant. Further, the said partial partition was acted upon and the same was also sent to numerous Government departments. When this document was sought to be marked, the same was objected to by the first defendant by filing a Memo objecting to the said marking of the said partition list on the ground that it is inadmissible in evidence. The learned judge allowed the memo filed by the first defendant by an order dated 14. 2005. When this document was sought to be marked, the same was objected to by the first defendant by filing a Memo objecting to the said marking of the said partition list on the ground that it is inadmissible in evidence. The learned judge allowed the memo filed by the first defendant by an order dated 14. 2005. Challenging the same, the plaintiffs have filed the above Revision Petition before this Court. 4. This Court on 19. 2005 granted stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.13 of 2004 and the same is in force till date. 5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/plaintiffs and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and the learned counsel for the respondents 5 and 6. I have also gone through the documents available on record including the counter affidavit filed on behalf of 5th and 6th respondents. 6. The Suit is one for partition filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs and P.W.1 was examined on 4. 2005. While being examined in chief, the plaintiffs wanted to mark the document styled as “partial partition list” dated 33. 1973. The said making of the document was objected to by the learned counsel appearing for the defendants/respondents. It was contended by the plaintiff that 33. 1973 document was a family partition list evidencing a partial partition already taken place between the coparceners and this document has not created any title and therefore, it does not require any registration and consequently, it is admissible in evidence. But on the objection raised by the defendants, the Trial Court held that there is no mention in the document viz., 33. 1973 about any prior partial partition held in the family and it would refer to preparation of partition list only. Therefore, holding that there is no iota of evidence in the document to infer a prior partial partition in the family of Ramu Chettiyar before 33. 1973 the Trial Court held that this document is inadmissible in evidence. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that for admitting document in evidence, the truth and falsity of the document cannot be gone into at the time of reception of the judgment. The admissibility of the document is to be gone into only at the time of passing judgment. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that for admitting document in evidence, the truth and falsity of the document cannot be gone into at the time of reception of the judgment. The admissibility of the document is to be gone into only at the time of passing judgment. He further adds that there was partial partition in March 1973 in the family in which Krishnan, the husband of the first plaintiff and the father of the second plaintiff was allotted ‘A’ schedule properties. After such partial partition was effected, a partial partition list dated 33. 1973 was prepared and the first defendant herein has also signed the same on behalf of the other minor sons. Therefore, according to him, the learned Trial Judge failed to take not of the fact that prior to the preparation of the written clearly reiterate that the partial partition list was prepared long after a partition was effected orally in the family. Therefore, the order of the Trial Court in not admitting the document and rejecting the same, calls for interference by this Court. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners would relay on the following decisions: 1. C.S. Kumaraswami Gounder v. Aravagiri Gounder and another, 1974 (1) MLJ 413 ; 2. Roshan Singh and others v. Zile Singh and others, AIR 1988 SC 881 ; 3. Mayilu Ammal and others v. Renganathan, 2005 (5) CTC 424 ; 4. Balamani v. Kailasam Konar, 2000 (1) LW 476 ; 5. K.G. Shivalingappa (D) by Lrs. and others v. G.S. Eswarappa and others, 2004 (4) CTC 143 (SC) : AIR 2004 SC 4130 . 8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants would submit that the document dated 33. 1973 which was sought to be admitted at the time of Trial is to be treated as a Memo of partial partition, as there was no previous partition between the members of the family. Since the rights are created under the very same document, the same cannot be admitted in evidence as per Section 35 of the Stamp Act without adequate stamp and registration. They submit that it is also in violation of Section 17 of the Registration Act. Since the rights are created under the very same document, the same cannot be admitted in evidence as per Section 35 of the Stamp Act without adequate stamp and registration. They submit that it is also in violation of Section 17 of the Registration Act. Since the said document was unregistered and unstamped, the first respondent rightly filed a Memo objecting to the marking of the said document as per Order 13, Rule 3 of C.P.C. and the Trial Court is due appreciation of the fact respondent would submit that there is no infirmity nor illegality in the order passed by the Trial Court. 9. In support of his submission, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 5 and 6 refers to the following decisions: 1. Balakrishnan and another v. Chandrasekharan, 2003 (3) MLJ 45 ; 2. R. Deivanai Ammal (deceased by LR) and another v. G. Meenakshi Ammal and others, 2004 (4) CTC 208 (SC) : AIR 2004 Mad. 529 ; 3. P. Shanmugasamy v. Kausalya alias Krishnaveni, 2004 (4) CTC 324 ; 4. Duraisami Naidu and others v. C. Ramakrishnan and others, 2006 (5) CTC 681 ; and 5. Vincent Lourdhenathan Dominique and another v. Josephine Syla Dominique, 2008 (1) CTC 308 . 10. I have considered the rival submissions carefully with regard to facts and citations. 11. The only issue that arises for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition is whether the Trial Court has correctly held the document dated 33. 1973 could not be marked as an exhibit on the side of the plaintiff. 12. Before answering the issue, let me consider the judgments referred to by both the parties. 13. In C.S. Kumaraswami Gounder v. Aravagiri Gounder and another, 1974 (1) MLJ 413 , a Division bench of this Court held that an unregistered partition deed could not be admitted in evidence to prove the terms of the partition, it could be certainly admitted in evidence for proving the division in status and the fact of partition. Therefore, the Division Bench held that an unregistered deed of partition the nature and character of possession of the respective items of properties in the member of coparcenary. 14. Therefore, the Division Bench held that an unregistered deed of partition the nature and character of possession of the respective items of properties in the member of coparcenary. 14. In Roshan Singh and others v. Zile Singh and others, AIR 1988 SC 881 , the Hon’ble Supreme Could held that when a document does not effect a partition but merely records the nature of the arrangement arrived at as regards the decision of the remaining property, it does not requires registration. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that a document though unregistered can however be looked into for the limited and collateral purpose of showing that the subsequent division of properties allotted was in pursuance of the original intention to divide. 15. In Balamani v. Kailasam Konar, 2000 (1) LW 476 , this Court held that Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act permits admissibility of document which requires registration to be used for collateral purpose. 16. Mayilu Ammal and others v. Renganathan, 2005 (5) CTC 424 , this Court relying on the ration laid down in Bondar Singh v. Nihal Singh, 2003 (2) CTC 635 (SC) : 2003 (4) SCC 161 , held that unstamped and unregistered sale deed could be permitted to be marked for collateral purpose. 17. InK.G. Shivalingappa (D) by Lrs. and others v. G.S. Eswarappa and others, 2004 (4) CTC 143 (SC) : AIR 2004 SC 4130 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the principle that an unregistered document could be relied upon to establish the severance of status in the joint family. 18. InR. Deivanai Ammal (deceased by LR) and another v. G. Meenakshi Ammal and others, 2004 (4) CTC208 (SC) : AIR 2004 Mad. 529 , a Division bench of this Court held that a family arrangement relinquishing a person’s right, interest and share in immovable properties, which is neither stamped nor registered cannot be relied on in view of specific bar under Section 35 of the Stamp Act. 19. In Balakrishnan and another v. Chandrasekharan, 2003 (3) MLJ 45 , this Court held that a family arrangement which purports to create or extinguish any right which is not stamped and nor registered, cannot be looked into for any purpose in view of the specific bar under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act. 20. 19. In Balakrishnan and another v. Chandrasekharan, 2003 (3) MLJ 45 , this Court held that a family arrangement which purports to create or extinguish any right which is not stamped and nor registered, cannot be looked into for any purpose in view of the specific bar under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act. 20. In P. Shanmugasamy v. Kausalya alias Krishnaveni, 2004 (4) CTC 324 , this Court held that a Revision Petition under Section 115, C.P.C., is not maintainable against an order passed by the Trial Court refusing to accept documents as evidence for non-registration. 21. In Duraisami Naidu and others v. C. Ramakrishnan and others, 2006 (5) CTC 681 , this Court held that if the lease is put in writing and the period is more than one year, it requires registration as per Section 17(1)(d) of the Indian Registration Act and when such registration is mandatory requirement, there is absolutely no jurisdiction on the part of the Court to receive the documents. 22. In Vincent Lourdhenathan Dominique and another v. Josephine Syla Dominique, 2008 (1) CTC 308 , this Court held that a family arrangement which allotted properties and did not record earlier partition requires registration and unregistered document cannot be admitted in evidence. 23. In the light of the above judgments, let met consider the facts of the present case. 24. A perusal of the document dated 33. 1973 filed in the typed set of papers would make it very clear that it allotted properties and assets to J. Ramu Chettiar, Minor Vivekanandan and minor Krishnan. No where it discloses that there was a partition previously and the same was being by the Trial Court, it requires registration. This document being an unregistered one can be looked into for collateral purpose only. It is well settled that even an unregistered document is admissible in evidence for collateral purpose provided it is adequately stamped under the Stamp act. If the document is both unstamped and unregistered, as the document in question here, it is no doubt true that it cannot be looked into for collateral purpose also. It is well settled that even an unregistered document is admissible in evidence for collateral purpose provided it is adequately stamped under the Stamp act. If the document is both unstamped and unregistered, as the document in question here, it is no doubt true that it cannot be looked into for collateral purpose also. But such a document should not be thrown out at the threshold itself and an opportunity must be extended to the party who wants to mark the document on his side by directing him to pay the deficit stamp duty along with the penalty upto date, then the document could be admitted in evidence for collateral purpose. If the person does not pay the Court, then the document is to be impounded and sent to the Collector for taking action under the law. 25. Though the Trial Court has correctly held the legal position, it has not given an opportunity to the revision petitioners to pay the deficit stamp duty along with the penalty upto date. Therefore, I am inclined to interfere with the order of the Trial Court dated 14. 2005 and consequently the same is set aside. 26. The Trial Court is directed give an opportunity to the revision petitioners to pay the entire stamp duty along with the penalty upto date and thereafter proceed with the matter as indicated in the order. 27. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed in the above terms. C.M.P.No.15420 of 2005 is closed. 28. Since the Suit is of the year 2005, the Trial Court is directed to disposed of the Suit within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.