CRP/6545/2026 of L.D.Raghavan (Deceased) Vs The state of Tamil Nadu on 12 October 2026

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the fair and decreetal order dated 17.02.2026 in I.A.No.5 of 2025 in OS.No.2685 of 2021 on the file of the VII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, wherein the application filed by the

CRP No. 6545 of 2026

petitioners/plaintiffs to let in secondary evidence of a Koorchit dated 16.11.1937, came to be rejected by the Court below.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents and carefully perused the materials available on record and this Court also carefully went through the order passed by the Court below.

3. The petitioners are the plaintiffs who have filed the suit in O.S.No.2685 of 2021 seeking for the relief of declaration of title and for permanent injunction. The suit was at the stage of evidence and at that stage, IA No.5 of 2025 was filed to let in secondary evidence of the Koorchit dated 16.11.1937. This application was rejected by the Court below on the ground that the photocopy of the document was illegible and apart from that, the document itself is inadmissible in evidence. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the original document was not available with the plaintiffs and that a legible photocopy was available and the same was sought to be relied upon for collateral purposes under Section 49 of the Registration Act. To substantiate the same, the learned

CRP No. 6545 of 2026

counsel for the petitioner relied upon the order passed in CRP (PD) No.2511 of 2017, dated 10.12.2021 and T.Tharmaraj Pandian (died) and others vs. R.Ayyammal and another reported in 2026 SCC Online Mad 4555.

5. In the case in hand, the document that is sought to be let in as secondary evidence is a Koorchit dated 16.11.1937. On going through this document, it is seen that this document, which divided the properties in presenti, is neither stamped nor registered. The issue is whether a document of this nature can be relied upon for collateral purposes.

6. This issue is no longer res integra and useful reference can be made to the judgment of this Court in Thangamuthu and Ors. vs. A. Jeyaraj reported in 2019 4 LW 602, wherein this Court, after dealing with all the earlier judgments, held that the document that is unstamped and unregistered is not admissible in evidence. Insofar as utilizing such a document for collateral purposes is concerned, the Apex Court held that such a document cannot even be looked for collateral purposes. Useful reference can be made in Avinash Kumar Chauhan vs. Vijay Krishna Mishra reported in 2009 2 SCC 532 and S. Thirumalai vs. S. Govindarajan and Ors. reported in 2017 1 CTC 198. This is in view of the bar under Section 35 of the Stamp Act.

CRP No. 6545 of 2026

7. In view of the above, even if the petitioners/plaintiffs are ultimately able to be produce a legible copy of the Koorchit, which is neither stamped nor registered, it cannot be looked into even for collateral purposes. Therefore, for this reason, the order passed by the Court below does not warrant interference of this Court.

8. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No Costs. 12-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SSR To

1. The VII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. The Secretary State of Tamil Nadu Municipal Administration and Water Supply Dept Fort St.Georege, Chennai 009

3. The Member Secretary Chennai Metropolitan Development authority Egmore Chennai 600 008

4. The Commisssioner Corporation of Chennai Chennai

CRP No. 6545 of 2026

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J. SSR

5. The Collector of Chennai Singaravelar Malogai Chennai 1

6. The District Revenue Officer Singaravelar Maligai Chennai 1

7. The Tahsildar Egmore Nungambakkam Chennai 600 031 CRP No. 6545 of 2026 12-10-2026