CRP/4690/2026 of Kamatchi (died) Vs JOTHI on 3 November 2026

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed in I.A.No.7 of 2025 in O.S.No.180 of 2015, dated 22.10.2025, on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu, wherein the application filed by the petitioners/defendants for filing additional documents came to be partly allowed by permitting documents 3 to 37 to be filed and rejecting insofar as Document Nos.1 1 and 2

are concerned.

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

3. The respondent is the plaintiff who filed the suit in OS.No.180 of 2015, seeking for the relief of partition and for allotment of 1/5th share and for other consequential reliefs.

4. The petitioners who are the defendants filed IA.No.7 of 2025, to receive additional documents 1 to 37. The Court below partly allowed the application and allowed the petitioners to bring in documents 3 to 37 and rejected the application insofar as Document Nos.1 and 2 are concerned. Aggrieved by the same, the present CRP has been filed before this Court.

5. The Court below has rejected Document No.1 which is an unregistered release deed on the ground that it is inadmissible in evidence. The second document that has been rejected by the Court below is the photocopy of patta.

6. Insofar as Document No.1 is concerned, it is admittedly an unregistered released deed which has been insufficiently stamped. In a suit for partition, such a document can be taken in and looked into for collateral purposes, subject to payment of the the necessary stamp duty and penalty.

7. Useful reference can be made to the order passed in CRP.No.4203 of 2026 dated 1.9.2026 and the relevant portions are extracted hereunder:-

7. The nature of document that was sought to be relied upon by the petitioner/1st defendant has been extracted by the Court below at paragraph 10 of the order. On carefully reading the recitals, it is clear that the property has been settled in favour of her four sons by the mother and this document is in the nature of a settlement deed. Admittedly, this document is unstamped and unregistered. Where a document is unstamped and unregistered, it cannot be looked into even for collateral purposes. However, a document which is stamped, but not registered can be looked into for collateral purposes.

8. At this juncture, the judgment of the Apex Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner gains a lot of significance.

9. In the case of Sita Ram Bhama referred supra, the Apex Court has held as follows:

14. After holding the said documents as inadmissible, this Court in Yellapu Uma Maheswari case? further proceeded to consider the question as to whether the documents B-21 and B-22 can be used for any collateral purpose. In the above context, the Court accepted the submission of the appellant that the documents can be looked into for collateral purpose provided the appellant-defendant to pay the stamp duty together with penalty and get the document impounded. In paras 16 and 17, the following has been laid down: "16. Then the next question that falls for consideration is whether these can be used for any collateral purpose. The larger Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Chinnappareddigari Peda Mutyala Reddy v. Chinnappareddigari Venkata Reddy has held that the whole process of partition contemplates three phases 1.e. severancy of status, division of joint property by metes and bounds and nature of possession of various shares. In a suit for partition, an unregistered document can be relied upon for collateral purpose i.e. severancy of title, nature of possession of various shares but not for the primary purpose i.e. division of joint properties by metes and bounds. An unstamped instrument is not admissible in evidence even for collateral purpose, until the same is impounded. Hence, if the appellant-defendant want to mark these documents for collateral purpose it is open for them to pay the stamp duty together with penalty and get the document impounded and the trial court is at liberty to mark Exts. B-21 and B-22 for collateral purpose subject to proof and relevance.

17. Accordingly, the civil appeal is partly allowed holding that Exts.B-21 and B-22 are admissible in evidence for collateral purpose subject to payment of stamp duty, penalty, proof and relevancy."

10. In the above judgement, the Apex Court relied upon Yellapu Uma Maheswari case referred supra, wherein the document in question was a relinquishment deed which was neither stamped nor registered. The Apex Court has held that in a suit for partition, such a document can be taken in evidence by the Trial Court by impounding the document and making the party pay the stamp duty along with penalty. After undertaking this exercise, the Court can look into the document for collateral purposes. The above two judgments of the Apex Court, virtually carves out an exception insofar as a suit for partition is concerned. Therefore, the issue that is involved in the present case is squarely covered by the above judgments.

11. As a general proposition, a document which is unstamped and unregistered cannot be looked into even for collateral purposes due to the complete bar under Section 35 of the Stamp Act, 1899. However, the Apex Court has carved out an exception insofar as a suit for partition is concerned and declared the law to the effect that in such a scenario, the Court can impound the document and direct the party to pay the stamp duty along with penalty and thereafter take the document in evidence and consider the same for collateral purpose. This Court is bound by the above judgments of the Apex Court.

8. In view of the above, the Court below can permit the petitioners/defendants to bring in Document No.1 which is the unregistered release deed and it can be impounded by the Court below and the petitioners can be directed to pay the stamp duty along with penalty and thereafter it can be considered for collateral purposes.

9. Insofar the second document is concerned, it is a photocopy of the patta. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners will get the computerised patta and file the same before the Court below.

10. In the light of the above stand taken by the petitioners, it is left open to the petitioners to mark the computerised patta before the Court below.

11. In the light of the above discussion, the order passed by the Court below stands modified for Document Nos. 1 and 2 in the above terms and this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, CMP Nos.29967 & 20585 of 2026 are closed. 03-11-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No KP Note: Issue order copy on 6.11.2026 To Additional Subordinate Judge Chengalpattu.

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J. KP CRP No. 4690 of 2026 03-11-2026