ORDER : K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred against the order, dated22.02.2024 passed in I.A.No.82 of 2022 in O.S.No.19 of 2019 on the file of the Additional District, Paramakudi, dated 22.02.2024. 2. The revision petitioners are the defendants 4 and 5 in the above said suit. The respondent as plaintiff filed the said suit in O.S.No.19 of 2019 on the file of the Additional District, Paramakudi for partition and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from encumbering the suit property. Pending suit, the revision petitioners/defendants filed an application in I.A.No.82 of 2022 for marking a release deed, dated 28.07.1992 after paying the stamp duty required. The said document was resisted on the side of the respondent/plaintiff stating that the said document requires compulsory registration and stamp duty. The trial Court considering the averments made in the petition and counter affidavit and the arguments advanced by the respective counsels dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the same the present revision is preferred. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners would submit that the respondent/plaintiff filed the said suit for partition claiming 1/3 rd share in the suit properties and for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners and other defendants from encumbering the suit properties. Pending suit, the revision petitioners/defendants have filed an application in I.A.No.82 of 2022 for collecting deficit stamp duty in respect of the document viz., released deed, dated 28.07.1992 executed by the mother of the plaintiff. Since it is an un-registered and un-stamped release deed the petitioners sought for the permission of this Court to collect the deficit stamp duty and to mark the same to establish that the plaintiff has no right or interest over the suit property. Further submission of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is that respondent's husband was examined as PW.1 and in his cross examination he has denied the execution of the said release deed, dated 28.07.1992 though he had admitted the signature made in the above document as attesting witness. Since the counsel for the respondent objected the marking of the said un-registered release deed during cross examination of the said witness, the petitioners filed a calculation memo for collecting the stamp duty to be paid on the above release deed. However, the trial Court without adverting the very purpose of the application erroneously dismissed the same on 22.02.2024, which requires consideration by this Court. However, the trial Court without adverting the very purpose of the application erroneously dismissed the same on 22.02.2024, which requires consideration by this Court. He would further submit that in-sufficiently stamped instrument can be admitted as documentary evidence upon payment of stamp duty with penalty and the release deed can be accepted for collateral purpose after obtaining permission of the Court. In support of his contention he has relied upon the following decisions: i) 2012(4) CTC 32 (Singaravelu Vs. Udayakumar) ii) 2001(4) SCC 197 (Chilakuri Gangulappa Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalle and another) iii) 2010(1)CTC 27 (1.Kalaivani @ Devasena and another Vs. J. Ramu and 8 others) 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that since the alleged release deed was un-stamped and un-registered the same cannot be admitted in evidence even for collateral purpose. In support of his contention he has relied upon the following decisions: i) 2011(1) MWN (Civil) 297 (Ammamuthu Ammal (died) and another Vs. Devaraj and others) ii) 2024(6) CTC 399 (Muthu Vs. Sampath and others) iii) 2020(1) CTC 47 (Thangamuthu and others Vs.A.Jeyaraj) iv) 2011(2) MWN (Civil) 594 (Vasantha Ammal Vs. Gunasekaran) v) 2017 SCC Online Mad 32648 in CRP.PD.No.4694 of 2014 (Ponnusamy Vs. Nataraj) 5. Heard on both sides and perused the materials available on record. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners submitted that there is no legal impediment for the Court to impound the document by referring to the concerned authority and that after payment of stamp duty penalty, the said document can be admitted in evidence for collateral purpose. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that there is no scope for impounding the document since the execution of document itself is not admitted and that when it is a compulsory registrable documents it cannot be impounded. Now, it has to be seen whether the said document can be impounded to the concerned authority for collection of stamp duty penalty. Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1998 mandates the document which extinguishes right of person in present or future above Rs.100/- in immovable property be compulsorily registered. If the document which requires compulsory registration is not registered, the same cannot be received in evidence even if stamp duty penalty is paid. Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1998 mandates the document which extinguishes right of person in present or future above Rs.100/- in immovable property be compulsorily registered. If the document which requires compulsory registration is not registered, the same cannot be received in evidence even if stamp duty penalty is paid. In the present case by means of the alleged release deed, the mother of the plaintiff is said to have released the property. Since the same has not been registered in terms of Section 17(1)(b) of the Act, the same cannot be admitted in evidence. Moreover, such documents cannot be looked into even for collateral purpose. The documents falling under Section 35 of the Stamp Act is not admissible as evidence for any purpose whatsoever including the collateral purpose. Furthermore, the release deed in question is a document under which the immovable property was transferred, but, no registration was effected. Hence, the release deed requires registration. Therefore, payment of stamp duty and penalty under Stamp Act cannot be a part to a place of registration. Since the document requires registration it cannot be cured by paying the difference in stamp duty and penalty. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent the release deed is vital evidence and not merely evidence for any collateral purpose. Therefore, mere payment of deficit stamp duty would not cure the defect of non-registration. The Division Bench of this Court in the Judgment reported in 2001(1) MLJ 1 (DB) has considered the scope of Sections 17 and 35 of the Registration Act and held that unstamped and unregistered document cannot be looked into for any purpose. The Division Bench of this Court in the Judgment reported in 2001 (1) MLJ 1 (DB) cited supra, in paragraph Nos. 41 and 42 has held as follows: 41. We hold that the document in question is being an unstamped and unregistered, the same cannot be looked into for any purpose. Similarly, oral evidence cannot be let in about the contents of the said document. 42. To sum up the legal position (I) A family arrangement can be made orally. (II) If made orally, there being no document, no question of registration arises. Similarly, oral evidence cannot be let in about the contents of the said document. 42. To sum up the legal position (I) A family arrangement can be made orally. (II) If made orally, there being no document, no question of registration arises. (III) 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. (IV) Whether the terms have been reduced to the form of a document is a question of fact in each case to be determined upon a consideration of the nature of phraseology of the writing and the circumstances in which and the purpose with which it was written. (V) However, a document in the nature of a Memorandum, evidencing a family arrangement already entered into and had been prepared as a record of what had been agreed upon, in order that there are no hazy notions in future, it need not be stamped or registered. (VI) 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. (VII) If the family arrangement is stamped but not registered, it can be looked into for collateral purposes. (VIII) Whether the purpose is a collateral purpose, is a question of fact depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. A person can not claim a right or title to a property under the said document, which is being looked into only for collateral purposes. (IX) 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. 7. In view of the above Division Bench Judgment of this Court the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The learned Judge has properly appreciated the facts and law and dismissed the application by giving cogent and valid reasons. 7. In view of the above Division Bench Judgment of this Court the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The learned Judge has properly appreciated the facts and law and dismissed the application by giving cogent and valid reasons. There is no circumstances warranting interference by this Court in the order passed by the trial Court. 8. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the order passed by this Court, dated 22.02.2024 made in I.A.No.82 of 2022 in O.S.No.19 of 2019 on the file of the learned Additional District Court, Paramakudi. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.