Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1296 (MAD)

K. Soundararajan v. A. Rajasekar

2011-03-08

S.RAJESWARAN

body2011
Judgment :- 1. TheRevision Petitioners have filed the above Revision against the order dated 15.10.2008 made in I.A. No.1 of 2008 in O.S.No.15 of 2007 passed by the learned Additional Sub Judge, Kumbakonam. 2. Thedefendants 2 and 3 in O.S.No.15 of 2007 are the Revision Petitioners before this Court. 3. O.S.No.15 of 2007 has been filed by the plaintiff/ the first respondent herein for partition and other reliefs. Written statement was filed by the second defendant which was adopted by the third defendant and the matter is being contested. Their case is that the document dated 03.09.1996 is an evidence of partition and hence the document requires to be adequately stamped. 4. Pending the suit, the defendants 2 and 3 / petitioners herein filed an application in Application No.1 of 2008 for referring the Document dated 03.09.1996 to the Revenue Divisional Officer for fixation of adequate stamp duty penalty for collection of the same. 5. An objection was raised by the plaintiff that there was no partition in the family and the document dated 03.09.1996 was inadmissible in evidence. Moreover, the plaintiff, took a view that the signature in the document was forged. Further the document is not stamped and unregistered too. 6. On that objection, the learned Judge dismissed the petition. Aggrieved against that, the present Revision has been filed by the defendants 2 and 3. 7. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and also the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent / plaintiff. I have also gone through the documents available on record. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the Lower Court failed to appreciate the fact that the document was objected to is an unstamped and unregistered one and the same was inadmissible in evidence. He referred to the provisions of the Stamp Act which requires that when a document is insufficiently stamped, for receiving the document in evidence, adequate stamp duty has to be paid. Hence appropriate steps were taken by filing an application, whereas according to him, the Trial Court, without appreciating the fact and the law, dismissed the application. 9. He referred to the provisions of the Stamp Act which requires that when a document is insufficiently stamped, for receiving the document in evidence, adequate stamp duty has to be paid. Hence appropriate steps were taken by filing an application, whereas according to him, the Trial Court, without appreciating the fact and the law, dismissed the application. 9. Though the learned counsel for the first respondent / plaintiff objected to the submissions made on the side of the petitioners, and supported the order passed by the trial Court, which is now challenged before this Court, I find force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In my considered view, if a party filing the document wants it to be admitted in evidence, then only the Court shall collect the stamp duty and penalty and admit it in evidence. But if the party, instead of requiring the document to be admitted in evidence merely wants to send it to the authority to be dealt with under the provisions of the Act, in such an event, the Court has no option but to send it to the authority. Having not done that, the learned Judge has disregarded the clear provision of law. 10. Therefore, I am inclined to set aside the order dated 15.10.2008 made in I.A.No.1 of 2008 in O.S.No.15 of 2007 and direct the Lower Court to send the document dated 03.09.1996 to the Revenue Divisional Officer for fixation of adequate stamp duty and penalty for collection of the same immediately. This formality should be complied with immediately so that the trial can commence soon. This procedure should be completed within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, both by the Lower Court and the Revenue Divisional Officer. 11. The plaintiff is at liberty to raise all his objections at the appropriate time regarding the admissibility of the document which is sought to be marked. 12. The Civil Revision Petition is therefore allowed on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.