Ganesan v. Saravanakumar

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23.06.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI and C.M.P.(MD)No.8976 of 2021 Ganesan

...Petitioner

Vs.

1.Saravanakumar 2.Arumugam 3.Karuppiah 4.Saratha 5.Murugavel 6.Venkatesh 7.Mohanraj 8.Balamurugan 9.Periyanayaki

...Respondents

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 23.09.2021 passed in I.A.No.24 of 2021 in O.S.No.53 of 2011, on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif, Karaikudi.

1/9

For Petitioner : Mr.M.P.Senthil For Respondents 1 to 8 : Mr.S.Madhavan For Respondent No.9 : Ex-parte

O R D E R

This petition has been filed seeking to set aside the order dated 23.09.2021 passed in I.A.No.24 of 2021 in O.S.No.53 of 2011, on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif, Karaikudi. 2.The respondent Nos.1 to 8 / plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.53of 2011 before the learned Additional District Munsif, Karaikudi, seeking declaration and permanent injunction of the suit properties. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner / first defendant filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.21 of 2021 in O.S.No.53 of 2011 under Order 8 Rule 1-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, to receive 7 documents as evidence for collateral purposes. The said application was allowed by the learned Additional District Munsif, Karaikudi, on 07.04.2021. However, only 6 documents came to be marked as Ex.B3 to Ex.B.8. Hence, for marking the left out 1 unregistered document dated 02.06.1997, the petitioner herein filed I.A.No.24 of 2021. The said application came to be dismissed. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

2/9

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that one Rakkappan Ambalam executed an unregistered sale deed dated 02.06.1997 in favour of the petitioner, which could not be marked earlier. Hence, the present application was filed to receive the said document in evidence for collateral purposes and to again examine the petitioner. It is further contended that marking the document for collateral purposes would not cause any prejudice to the respondent Nos.1 to 8 / plaintiffs and that the dismissal of the application is not sustainable in law.

4.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing the respondents would submit that the issue in this Civil Revision Petition is no longer res integra and is squarely covered by the decisions of this Court in the case of Thangamuthu and Others vs. A. Jeyaraj reported in 2019 (4) L.W. 602, and in the case of M.Ahamed Jesimabanu and another vs. A. Mohamed Maideen and Others, reported in 2025 (2) L.W. 309.

5.It was further contended by the learned Counsel for the respondents that an unregistered sale deed is inadmissible in evidence under the Registration Act and the Indian Stamp Act and cannot be admitted even for collateral purposes if the purpose of production is to prove title.

3/9

6.The main issue that arises for consideration in this case is whether the unregistered sale deed sought to be marked can be admitted in evidence for collateral purposes.

7.Useful reference can be made to the decision of this Court in the case of Thangamuthu and Others vs. A. Jeyaraj, cited supra, wherein this Court has held as follows:

" 12. It is clear from the judgments that have been cited on the side of the petitioners that a document, which is compulsorily registrable under the Registration Act, cannot be admitted in evidence, unless, it is registered. If a document is inherently bad for non-registration, it cannot be cured by paying deficit stamp duty and penalty. It is even a settled position of law that such documents cannot be looked into even for collateral purposes.

13. It is not necessary to extract all the judgments cited by the learned counsel appearing on either side, since the law is well settled in this regard.

14. The judgments that have been cited by the learned counsel for the respondent may not come to his aid, since the Hon'ble Supreme Court in those judgments has categorically held that in view of Section 35 of the Stamp Act, 1899, the 4/9

document, which falls under the said provision, shall not be admitted for any purpose whatsoever. This would also include for collateral purpose.

15. In view of the above settled position of law, the Court below went wrong in giving such a liberty to the respondent to pay sufficient stamp duty and thereafter, mark the document. Such liberty ought not to have been given by the Court below, since the document in question is per se inadmissible. Therefore, the liberty granted by the Court below in the order passed in I.A.No.800 of 2011 in O.S.No. 228 of 2017, dated 28.10.2011, is hereby set aside. "

8.Further, in the case of M. Ahamed Jesimabanu and Another vs. A. Mohamed Maideen and Others, it has been observed as follows: "11.A perusal of the plaint prayer reveals that the suit has been filed for the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction. The plaintiff had claimed title based upon a registered sale deed dated 23.05.2013. The third defendant claims that the second defendant has executed an unregistered sale deed in his favour on 21.12.2012. Based upon the said unregistered sale deed, he had executed a registered settlement deed in favour of his wife (D3) on 21.11.2014. Therefore, it is clear that the third defendant relies upon the unregistered sale deed dated 21.12.2012 for the purpose of 5/9

establishing his title over the suit schedule property. When an unregistered sale deed is being relied upon for the purpose of establishing title, it cannot be considered to be for collateral purposes.

12. It is settled possession of law that only for collateral purpose which do not require registration, an unregistered document can be relied upon that too after payment of deficit stamp duty penalty. In the present case, admittedly the unregistered sale deed dated 21.12.2012 is being relied upon for claiming title to the suit schedule properties in a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. In such circumstances, the trial Court has rightly rejected the application for reception of the said document for collateral purposes."

9.In the present case, the petitioner seeks to rely upon an unregistered sale deed dated 02.06.1997, to assert title over the suit property. As held in the decisions referred to above, such a document, being unregistered and relied upon to establish title is inadmissible in evidence, even for collateral purposes. 10.In view of the above settled legal position, this Court feels that the order passed by the trial Court cannot be found fault with. 6/9

11.Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

23.06.2025 Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No MR 7/9

To 1.The Additional District Munsif, Karaikudi.

2.The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

8/9

M.DHANDAPANI , J.

MR 23.06.2025 9/9