CRP(MD)/2452/2026 of THANGA VIJAYA Vs PETCHIAMMAL on 3 September 2026

ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 12.06.2026 passed in IA.No.8 of 2025 in OS.No.89 of 2021 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruchendur.

2. The petitioner is the defendant. The respondent is the plaintiff. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in OS.No.89 of 2021 for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of 2nd schedule property. The petitioner / defendant claimed that he had purchased the property on 12.10.2012 from the respondent/plaintiff vide registered sale deed and on the very same day, the respondent and his heirs had executed an unregistered partition release deed in favour of the petitioner pertaining to 2nd schedule property.

3. According to the revision petitioner, the suit property originally belonged to one Kasi Raj Nadar and on 23.05.1990 he had executed a registered power deed in favour of his power agent namely, K.Parthasarathy. The respondent had purchased the suit schedule property from the power agent Parthasarathy on 01.06.1992. While being so, on 12.10.2012, the petitioner purchased the property from the respondent through a registered sale deed. The respondent executed an unregistered partition release deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of second scheduled property as the property was a natham land. After that the petitioner has been continuously enjoying the suit 1st and 2nd schedule property without any hindrance by fencing the same. The 1st schedule property is a nanja land and the 2nd schedule property is a natham land and subsequent to the purchase, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property.

4. The respondent filed the suit for declaration, to declare that the suit second schedule property is the absolute property of the respondent and also for permanent injunction. The respondent/plaintiff claimed that she purchased the property on 01.06.1992 through a registered sale deed, bearing Document No.564 of 1992 from the power agent K.Parthasarathy and sold the 1st schedule property to the petitioner on 12.10.2012 and claims that the respondent never sold the 2nd schedule property.

5. The petitioner filed IA.No.8 of 2025 under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act seeking to send the unregistered partition release date dated 12.10.2012 executed by the respondent in favour of the petitioner in respect of the plaint second schedule property to the Sub Registrar Office, Tiruchendur with a direction to register the said document after collecting the appropriate stamp duty and penalty and thereafter to mark it as evidence.

6. The respondent objected the same by stating that it is a fraudulent document and their signatures have been forged in it. The respondent also contended that Section 33 of Indian Stamp Act deals with the impounding of documents and the recovery of deficit stamp duty from the parties concerned in case where a document has already been registered with insufficient stamp duty and prayed to dismiss the petition.

7. The trial Court held that under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act applies only to instruments produced before the Court or authority which are chargeable with duty but not duly stamped and also held that it does not empower the Court to direct registration of an un registered document. The trial Court further held that an unregistered document affecting immovable property can only be marked for collateral purposes. However, the petitioner is relying his title entirely upon the Partition release deed as the substantive piece of evidence and it cannot be permitted and the unregistered release deed cannot be marked as substantive evidence and dismissed the petition. Against which, the present civil revision petition is filed.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment in Yellapu Uma Maheswari and another Vs. Buddha Jagadheeswararao and others reported in 2016(2) LW 656, wherein paragraph Nos.15 and 17 held as follows: “15. Section 17 (1) (b) of the Registration Act mandates that any document which has the effect of creating and taking away the rights in respect of an immovable property must be registered and Section 49 of the Act imposes bar on the admissibility of an unregistered document and deals with the documents that are required to be registered u/s. 17 of the Act.

17. It is well settled that the nomenclature given to the document is not decisive factor but the nature and substance of the transaction has to be determined with reference to the terms of the documents and that the admissibility of a document is entirely dependent upon the recitals contained in that document but not on the basis of the pleadings set up by the party who seeks to introduce the document in question. A thorough reading of both Exhibits B-21 and B-22 makes it very clear that there is relinquishment of right in respect of immovable property through a document which is compulsorily registerable document and if the same is not registered, becomes an inadmissible document as envisaged under Section 49 of the Registration Act. Hence, Exhibits B-21 and B-22 are the documents which squarely fall within the ambit of section 17 (i) (b) of the Registration Act and hence are compulsorily registerable documents and the same are inadmissible in evidence for the purpose of proving the factum of partition between the parties. We are of the considered opinion that Exhibits B 21 and B22 are not admissible in evidence for the purpose of proving primary purpose of partition.”

9. It is true that an unregistered document can be relied upon before the Court and can only be marked for collateral purpose. In this case, the petitioner filed the petition with a prayer to direct the Court to register the document with the Registration Department after collecting appropriate stamp duty and penalty. The petitioner relied upon the document for establishing and confirming the substantive right and title over the property and a document must be compulsorily registered under Section 17(1) of the Registration Act, if unregistered cannot be admitted in evidence for any purpose. In the present case, and the petitioner has not relied upon the document for collateral purpose, but has sought to rely upon it for establishing substantive rights. Hence, the trial Court rightly dismissed the petition and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. There is no merit in this civil revision petition.

10. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

03.09.2026 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No RM To The District Munsif Court, Tiruchendur.

R. POORNIMA,

J.

RM C.R.P(MD)No.2452 of 2026 03.09.2026