Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1294 (MAD)

Periyasamy v. Selvambal & Another

2010-03-26

M.JAICHANDREN

body2010
Judgment :- This civil revision petition has been filed against the fair and decretal order, dated 21.10.2009, made in I.A.No1465 of 2009, in O.S.No.108 of 2004, on the file of the Second Additional Principal District Munsif Court, Kallakurichi, Villupuram District. 2. It has been stated that the suit, in O.S.No.108 of 2004, has been filed by the plaintiff, who is the first respondent in the present civil revision petition. The suit had been filed by the first respondent praying for partition and separate possession of the first respondent’s share of the suit schedule property. The first defendant in the said suit, who is the petitioner in the present civil revision petition, had filed an interlocutory application, in I.A.No.1465 of 2009, for marking the document, dated 6.9.1993, which is a release deed, according to which the first respondent is said to have released her share of the family property, on its being validated. The learned second Additional Principal District Munsif, Kallakurichi, had dismissed the interlocutory application, in I.A.No.1465 of 2009, on the ground that the value of the document sought to be marked by the petitioner could not be assessed. Further, the document does not contain the schedule of the property concerned. It had also been stated that the relief of the petitioner cannot be granted for the reason that the document, dated 11.4.1977, mentioned in the released deed, dated 6.9.1993, could not be produced by the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the trial Court had committed an error in not allowing the interlocutory application, in I.A.No.1465 of 2009, for the validation and marking of the document, dated 6.9.1993, especially, when the Registering Authority had been asked to assess the value of the said document. It has also been stated that the learned Second Additional Principal District Munsif, Kallakurichi, had failed to appreciate the evidentiary value of the document, as it would have been crucial in deciding the dispute amongst the parties concerned. It had also been stated that the learned Second Additional Principla District Munsif, Kallakurichi, had failed to consider the fact that the production of the document was necessary to establish the collateral aspect that there was a family arrangement, by which the first respondent had received due consideration to give up her rights in the family property. It had also been stated that the learned Second Additional Principla District Munsif, Kallakurichi, had failed to consider the fact that the production of the document was necessary to establish the collateral aspect that there was a family arrangement, by which the first respondent had received due consideration to give up her rights in the family property. The document in question would be of relevance, especially, in view of the fact that the first respondent had claimed that there was no family arrangement, despite the decision of the panchayat. The learned Judge ought not to have sent the document for assessing the value, when it discloses the value of consideration, as Rs.30,000/-. Since, the petitioner is intending to use the document only for a collateral purpose it can be an unregistered and unstamped document. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent had submitted that the validation of the document, sought to be marked by the petitioner, could not be made, as the Registering Authority was not in a position to value the document. The document in question does not contain the schedule of the property concerned and therefore, its value could not be assessed. Further, the petitioner has not been in a position to produce the document, dated 11.4.1977, mentioned in the release deed, dated 6.9.1993. 5. It had also been stated that since the release deed is relating to the alleged release of the first respondent’s right in the suit schedule property, the said document, dated 6.9.1993, should have been a registered document. As it has been claimed by the petitioner that the first respondent had relinquished her rights in the family property, by way of the release deed, dated 6.9.1993, the said document should have been properly stamped and registered. The learned counsel had also submitted that, as per the averments made by the petitioner, in the written statement filed by him in the suit, in O.S.No.108 of 2004, it is clear that the main purpose for which he was wanting to mark the release deed, dated 6.9.1993, is to show that the plaintiff had released her share of the family property, and there is no collateral purpose for which the document is sought to be marked. The learned counsel had also pointed out that, as per ground No.4 of the civil revision petition, the document in question relates to a family arrangement. As per the decision, reported in Lakshmipathy,A.C. V A.M.Chakrapani Reddiar ( 2001 (I) CTC 112 ,) a family arrangement, which is not stamped and not registered, cannot be looked into for any purpose, in view of the specific bar in Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The learned counsel had also submitted that no reason has been shown by the petitioner for the long delay in attempting to mark the document in question. 6. In view of the submissions made by learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available and in view of the decision cited supra, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to interfere with the order of the learned Second Additional Principal District Munsif, Kallakurichi, dated 21.10.2009, made in I.A.No.1465 of 2009 in O.S.No.108 of 2004. It is not in dispute that the document sought to be marked by the petitioner is unstamped and unregistered. Even though such a document could be made use of by the party concerned, for a collateral purpose, in the present case, it is seen that the petitioner is seeking to rely on the said document to show that the first respondent had relinquished her rights in the family property. From the written statement filed by the petitioner in the suit, in O.S.No.108 of 2004, on the file of the Second Additional District Munsif Court, Kallakurichi, and from the grounds raised in the present civil revision petition, before this Court, it is seen that the release deed, dated 6.9.1993, is sought to be relied on by the petitioner to extinguish the claims made by the first respondent, in respect of the suit schedule property. As such, the civil revision petition is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.