Judgment :- 1. The following are the averments contained in I.A.No.167/2010 filed in O.S.No.29 of 2007: The 1st petitioner and the 1st respondent have prepared and signed two family arrangement dated 21.09.2000 and 29.09.2000 for some items of the suit properties in Rs.10/- stamp papers, in the presence of auspicious of the Karaikudi Varthaga Nadar Uravumurai, through its office bearers and hence the said transactions are not in the nature of conveyance in the present or in the future, that no right has been created or relinquished in the said documents, that the said documents are only the notes of past transaction between the parties but the same are objected to by the respondents that they are inadmissible in evidence, that the do not create or extinguish any right in the properties mentioned there by itself, that the same are admissible in evidence, that they are not hit by want of registration under Section 17 and 49 of the Registration Act and that if such records are not received into evidence, the petitioners would be put to loss and hardships and hence the same may be received and marked as Exhibits. 2. In the written statement filed by the defendants, it is averred as follows: 2. (a) The averments in the petition are false and baseless, that the document bearing Sl.No.11102 dated 29.09.2000 is a forged one and the signature found in the same is not of this respondent, that the said document has been filed in the intervening petition in Crl.O.P.No.2366 of 2007 by the 1st petitioner in order to escape from the criminal action, that it is admissible in evidence for want of registration and stamp duty under the stamp act and registration Act. 2. (b) The document bearing Sl.No.11103 dated 21.09.2000 which are blank stamp papers with signatures of this respondent, was handed over by the respondent to Karaikudi Varthaga Nadar Uravumurai were fabricated as such document. 2. (b) The document bearing Sl.No.11103 dated 21.09.2000 which are blank stamp papers with signatures of this respondent, was handed over by the respondent to Karaikudi Varthaga Nadar Uravumurai were fabricated as such document. The recitals of the said document show that the right has been created under the said document in favour of the plaintiff No.1/defendantNo.1, that the recitals in the said document that hereafter there is no either relationship or other connections with the property concerned, would clearly establish the factum of relinquishment in the immovable property and hence the above said document under which the right is created or extinguished is not a notes of record of past transaction as alleged, that the said documents which are for want of sufficient stamps and registration are inadmissible in evidence, that the same cannot be marked in evidence as exhibits of the defendants and that the same may be dismissed with costs. 3. After analysing the materials on record, the learned District Judge, Sivaganga has dismissed the application and observed that the documents are inadmissible in evidence since there is insufficient of payment of stamp duty and lack of registration. Hence the revision. 4. Point for consideration: Whether the documents produced by the petitioners can be received for evidence? Point 5. Respondents 1 to 4 are the plaintiffs filed suit for partition. When the suit was part-heard stage, the petitioners who are defendants 1 to 5 came forward, filing the application praying the Court to receive two documents which are unregistered family arrangements in evidence on their side. For better appreciation of the matter, it is profitable to extract the contents of both the documents which are in vernacular language. They are dated 29.9.2000 and 21.9.2000 respectively. Both the documents have been reduced to writing in separate stamp papers to the value of Rs.10/- each. Both the stamp papers are dated 18.9.2000 with serial Nos.11102 and 11103 respectively. 6. The contents contained in Stamp Paper Sl.No.11102 reportedly written on 29.9.2000 is as follows: “Tamil” 7. The contents found in Stamp Paper Sl.No.11103 written on 21.9.2000 is as under: “Tamil” 8. The plaintiffs have categorically denied the signatures found in the first document. They also pleaded ignorance of contents of the document. 6. The contents contained in Stamp Paper Sl.No.11102 reportedly written on 29.9.2000 is as follows: “Tamil” 7. The contents found in Stamp Paper Sl.No.11103 written on 21.9.2000 is as under: “Tamil” 8. The plaintiffs have categorically denied the signatures found in the first document. They also pleaded ignorance of contents of the document. As far as the second doucment is concerned, they admitted they signed in blank papers in Karaikudi Varthaga Nadar Uravin Murai, but the contents were subsequently typed and the document was created. The plaintiffs have also placed plea that the documents are inadmissible in evidence for want of proper stamp duty and want of registration. To find out whether the documents are genuine, it depends upon the appreciation of oral evidence on record. Insofar as the point of payment of proper stamp duty and registration it is a legal point to be answered. 9. Mr.S. Srinivasa Raghavan learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the very reading of the contents of both documents would show that the division between the parties have already been effected and only on subsequent dates it was reduced to writing and hence it does not attract the provisions of Stamp Act nor Registration Act, that whenever an objection is raised regarding admissibility of any document in oral evidence, the Court should make a note such objection, shall decide is at the last stage of the final judgment and the practice of passing orders then and there enabling the parties to move higher forum has to be given up and that the documents themselves fulfil the statutory requirements of law. 10. Contending contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that since the documents are not registered and they are not duly stamped, they cannot be utilised for any purpose much less collateral purpose, that the very glance of both the documents would reveal that the rights of the parties are purported to be created on the dates of execution of documents, that it is well settled principles that if by virtue of a document, rights of the parties are created, or extinguished, it shall be properly stamped and registered and that in view of the non-registration and deficiency of stamp duty both the documents will lose their evidentiary value. 11. 11. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon a Full Bench judgment of Supreme Court reported in (2001) 3 SCC 1 [Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat and Another] wherein Their Lordships have observed as follows: "14. When so recast, the practice which can be a better substitue is this: 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 document 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.)" 12. As per the above said decision, if the document is found deficient in stamp duty then the Court can take up the matter and pass orders then and there without postponing the decision to a later date of final judgment. As far as this case is concerned, this Court is of the considered view that both the documents have been written on stamp papers to the value of Rs.10/- each. Further the tenor of the documents would convey that at the time of executing the document certain right were relinquished and some rights were created in favour of the defendants. Hence, the documents created extinguishment of right in praesenti. 12 (a). Legal flaw is that the documents remain unregistered. In this context, since these documents do not satisfy the statutory requirements of law, the petitioners side cannot take recourse to the advantage of above said decision. 13. Hence, the documents created extinguishment of right in praesenti. 12 (a). Legal flaw is that the documents remain unregistered. In this context, since these documents do not satisfy the statutory requirements of law, the petitioners side cannot take recourse to the advantage of above said decision. 13. Both the learned counsel relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 2005 -1-L.W. 343 [R.Deivanai Ammal (Died) & Another v. G. Meenakshi Ammal and Others] wherein after discussing the law on this point P. Sathasivam,J. (as his Lordship then was) has observed as follows: "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 the Indian Stamp Act and Indian Registration Act. Only when the parties reduce the family arrangement in writing with the purpose of using that writing as proof of what they had arranged and, where the arrangement is brought about by the document as such, that the document would require registration as it is then that it would be a document of title declaring for future what rights in what properties the parties possess. 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." 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that even though the document pertaining to family arrangement is not registered to encourage cordiality among family members it can be relied upon. To support is argument, he garnered support from a decision of Supreme Court in AIR 1966 SC 1836 [Maturi Pullaiah and another v. Maturi Narasimham and others] wherein Their Lordships have observed as follows: "Although conflict of legal claim in praesenti or in future is generally a condition for the validity of family arrangements, it is not necessarily so. Even bona fide disputes present or possible which may not involve legal claims would be sufficient. Members of a joint Hindu family may, to maintain peace or to bring about harmony in the family, enter into such a family arrangement. Even bona fide disputes present or possible which may not involve legal claims would be sufficient. Members of a joint Hindu family may, to maintain peace or to bring about harmony in the family, enter into such a family arrangement. If such an arrangement is entered into bona fide and the terms thereto are fair in the circumstances of a particular case, the Courts will more readily give assent to such an arrangement than to avoid it. In England also the Courts are averse to disturb family arrangements but try to sustain them on broadest considerations of the family peace and security." "The family arrangement will need the registration only if it creates any interest in immovable property in praesenti in favour of the parties mentioned therein. In case however no such interest is created, the document will be valid despite its non-registration and will not be hit by S.17 of the Registration Act." 15. In the above said judgment in para 21 it is held that as far as the facts of the present case are concerned the recitals in the documents would candidly show that the rights are being created by means of the documents themselves. By no stretch of imagination it could be stated that earlier partition or family arrangement was reduced to writing on a future date. In this juncture, it has to be necessarily observed because of nonregistration, the documents are not admissible in evidence, as per the above said decision. 16. He also cited a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in AIR 1966 SC 292 [Tek Bahadur Bujil v. Debi Singh Bhujil] wherein it is observed as under: "Family arrangement as such can be arrived at orally. Its terms may be recorded in writing as a memorandum of what had been agreed upon. The memorandum need not be prepared for the purpose of being used as a document on which future title of the parties be founded. It is usually prepared as a record of what had been agreed upon in order that there are no hazy notions about it in future. The memorandum need not be prepared for the purpose of being used as a document on which future title of the parties be founded. It is usually prepared as a record of what had been agreed upon in order that there are no hazy notions about it in future. It is only when the family arrangement is reduced in writing with the purpose of using that writing as proof of what they had arranged and, where the agreement is brought about by the document as such, that the document requires registration, because it is then that it would amount to a document of title declaring for future what rights and in what properties the parties possess. But a document which is no more than a memorandum of what had been agreed to between the parties does not require compulsory registration under S.17 of the Registration Act." 17. In the above said case, it is stressed that only when an earlier partition or family arrangement is reduced to writing on a subsequent date, there is no need for registration. Otherwise, the document would call for registration for all practical purposes. The above said principles have been reiterated in the following decisions of this Court: 1.1998-2-L.W. 678 [Ayyakkannu Padayachi (deceased) and 3 othere v. Boorasamy and another] 2. 1999 (III) M.L.J. 443 [Balamani v. Kailasam Konar] 3.2001-1-L.W.257 [A.C.Lakshmipathy v. A.M.Chakrapani Reddiar & 5 others] 18. In a decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent in (2009) 2 MLJ 526 (SC) [K.B.Saha & Sons Pvt.Ltd., v. Development Consultant Ltd.] Their Lordships have been explained the term "collateral purpose". The discussion goes thus: "As we have already noted that under the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, an unregistered document can also be admitted into evidence for a collateral fact/collateral purpose, let us now look at the meaning of "collateral purpose" and then ascertain whether Clause 9 of the lease agreement can be looked into for such collateral purpose. It was also held that to use such an instrument for the purpose of proving such a terms would not be using it for a collateral purpose and that the question as to who is the tenant and on what terms he has been created a tenant are not collateral facts but they are important terms of the contract of tenancy, which cannot be proved by admission of an unregistered lease deed into evidence." 19. In the case of A.C. Lakshmipathy (supra), the term "Collateral purpose" has been explained, which is as follows: "The expression "Collateral purposes" is no doubt a very vague one and the Court must decide in each case whether the parties who seek to use the unregistered document for a purpose which is really a collateral one or to establish the title to the immovable property conveyed by the document. But by the simple device of calling it "collateral purpose", a party cannot use the unregistered document in any legal proceedings to bring about indirectly the effect which it would have had if it registered." 20. It is observed in the above said decision that by taking advantage of the term "collateral purpose" parties cannot pressed into service the documents for establishing their contention of the case indirectly as if the document is legally enforceable. In effect the parties are precluded from initiating endeavor to prove their substantive plea by taking advantage of production of such documents. 21. All the citations relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent contain the same legal principles. Any document without sufficient stamp duty and unregistered would attract Section 2(15) of the Stamp Act and Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act. As already stated, the recitals in the documents relied upon by the petitioners contain no reference of division between the parties on an earlier date. The rights of the parties appeared to have been created or extinguished on the date of execution of documents. 22. The following are the judgments relied upon by the learned appearing for the respondents: 1. 1996 (1) CTC 541 [Rajamanickem & three others v. Elangovan & four others] 2. 1998 II MLJ 5 [Arumughachamy v. Deivanaiammal] 3. 2001-1-L.W.257 [A.C. Lakshmipathy v. A.M.Chakrapani Reddiar and 5 others] 4. (2002)I M.L.J. 760 [Rengasami Reddiar (died) and others v. M.K.Mummachi Reddiar (died) and others] 5. (2003)3 M.L.J. 45 [Balakrishnan and another v. Chandrasekaran] 6. 1996 (1) CTC 541 [Rajamanickem & three others v. Elangovan & four others] 2. 1998 II MLJ 5 [Arumughachamy v. Deivanaiammal] 3. 2001-1-L.W.257 [A.C. Lakshmipathy v. A.M.Chakrapani Reddiar and 5 others] 4. (2002)I M.L.J. 760 [Rengasami Reddiar (died) and others v. M.K.Mummachi Reddiar (died) and others] 5. (2003)3 M.L.J. 45 [Balakrishnan and another v. Chandrasekaran] 6. 2008(1) T.N.C.J.434(Mad)[Vincent Lourchenathan Dominique v. Josephine Syla Dominique] 7. (2010) 8 M.L.J. 66 [D.Sivagnanam v. Thirugnanaprakasam and others] 8. 2011 (1) CTC 807 [Kaliappan v. Kuzhandhaivelu] 9. (2011) 3 MLJ 59 [Vasantha Ammal v. Gunasekaran] 23. In view of the law on this point abovestated, it ought to be held that a document which creates or extinguishes right by itself would call for payment of sufficient stamp duty and due registration under the Stamp Act and the Registration Act. If the document is not stamped or insufficiently stamped or not registered, such document is inadmissible in evidence and it could not be relied upon by the Court for any collateral purpose. Hence, the document cannot be allowed to be marked in evidence. In such a view of the mater the order passed by the trial Court needs no interference which deserves to be confirmed and accordingly it is confirmed. The revision is devoid of merits, which suffers dismissal. The point is answered as indicated above. 24. In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.