Allowed

J.Gunasekaran v. Sarala

Madras HC27 Jul 2021CRP/2655/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

HC allowed a civil revision to set aside an impugned order dismissing impugnation. The court held that an unregistered, unstamped family arrangement can be impounded for payment of duty and penalty to serve a collateral purpose like severancy of title, but not for division of property by metes and bounds.

What did the court decide?

Impounded unregistered coor chit for stamp duty and penalty; directed trial court to mark it for collateral purpose only; set aside impugned order.

J.Gunasekaran Vs Sarala — Partition | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

CRP.PD.No.2655 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 27.07.2021

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

CRP.PD.No.2655 of 2018 and CMP.No.15836 of 2018

¶7

1.J.Gunasekaran
2.J.Pannerselvam
3.J.Gopi ..Petitioners
Vs.
1.Sarala
2.Ammu
3.R.Sangeetha
4.A.Kavitha
5.Meera ..Respondents
PRAYER:
The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decretal order dated
28.07.2017 passed in IA.No.1230 of 2015 in OS.No.346 of 2011 on

¶8

the file of the Additional District Munsif, Poonamallee

¶9

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Prabakar For Respondents For R1 to 4 : Mr.M.V.Seshachari R5 : No appearance

¶10

1/8

¶11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶12

CRP.PD.No.2655 of 2018

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decretal order dated 28.07.2017 passed in IA.No.1230 of 2015 in OS.No.346 of 2011 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Poonamallee, thereby dismissing the petition seeking to permit the petitioners to impound the document for payment of stamp duty with penalty.

¶15

respondents 1 to 4 are the plaintiffs, and they filed suit for partition. While pending the suit, the petitioners filed petition to permit them to file coor chit. They have not paid any proper stamp duty and it is unregistered one. Therefore, they filed petition to impound the same for payment of stamp duty with penalty. The same was dismissed on the ground that under the said document, the parties are divided the property from the date of the said coor chit, i.e. 10.03.1999. Therefore, the document requires stamp duty as well as registration, and it cannot be admissible for want for registration.

¶16

The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the

¶17

judgment in the case of Yellapu Uma Maheswari & Another Vs.

¶18

Buddha Jagadheeswararao and others reported in 2016 (2) LW

¶19

2/8

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶21

CRP.PD.No.2655 of 2018

¶22

656 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as follows:

¶23

18. Then the next question that falls for consideration is whether these can be used for any collateral purpose. The larger Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Chinnappa Reddy Gari Muthyala Reddy Vs. Chinnappa Reddy Gari Vankat Reddy , AIR 1969 A.P. (242) has held that the whole process of partition contemplates three phases i.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 appellants/defendants 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 Exhibits B-21 and B- 22 for collateral purpose subject to proof and relevance.

¶24

Accordingly, the document which was sought to be impounded can be

¶25

relied on for collateral purpose, i.e. severancy of title and nature of possession of their respective shares, but not for the primary purpose

¶26

3/8

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶28

CRP.PD.No.2655 of 2018

¶29

i.e. division of joint properties by metes and bounds.

¶30

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that even in the written statement, they categorically stated that the family arrangement was happened between the defendants and one, J.Krishnan who is none other than the father of the respondents herein. One coor chit was executed between them. As per the said coot chit, he received a sum of Rs.20,000/- as his share in respect of the suit property from the petitioners and thereafter they divided the suit property and constructed the house as per their respective shares. Therefore, the document which is sought to be relied upon, in which already division of property was made and they have constructed in their respective shares. Therefore, it cannot be even relied upon for collateral purpose. In support of his contention, he relied upon the order passed by this Court in CRP.(MD)No.855 of 2012 on 12.09.2019, wherein it is held that the unregistered document is inherently inadmissible, it can be objected even at the

¶31

later point and failure to object to its admission, when it was marked, would not make it automatically admissible. Further held that the document which is compulsorily registrable under the Registration Act cannot be admitted in evidence unless it is registered. He also relied upon the unreported judgment of this Court in CRP.(PD) 4/8

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶33

CRP.PD.No.2655 of 2018

¶34

(MD).No.673 of 2012 on 19.09.2019, wherein this Court held that a family arrangement which is unstamped and unregistered cannot be looked into even for collateral purpose. There is complete bar under Section 35 of Stamp Act and it has become inadmissible in evidence.

¶35

Heard, Mr.R.Prabakar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr.M.V.Seshachari, the learned counsel for the respondent 1 to 4.

¶36

Admittedly, the respondents 1 to 4 filed suit for partition and the petitioners filed written statement and stated that family arrangement was happened between the petitioners and the father of the respondents by the coor chit dated 10.03.1999 and as per the said coor chit, the father of the respondents received a sum of Rs.20,000/as his share in respect of the suit property and they have constructed in their respective shares as per the coor chit. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in a suit for partition, an unregistered document can be relied upon for collateral purpose i.e. severancy of title and nature of possession of various shares, but not for the primary purpose i.e. division of joint properties by metes and bounds. Accordingly, the coor chit dated 10.03.1999 can be relied upon for collateral purpose i.e. severancy of title and nature of possession of their respective shares alone. It cannot be relied upon for the purpose 5/8

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶38

CRP.PD.No.2655 of 2018

¶39

of division of their joint properties by metes and bounds. Unstamped instrument is not admissible in evidence even for collateral purpose until the same is impounded.

¶40

Therefore, the unregistered coor chit dated 10.03.1999 is

¶41

hereby impounded for payment of stamp duty together with penalty. Thereafter, the trial court is directed to mark the same for collateral

¶42

purpose as mentioned above alone subject to proof and relevance.

¶43

Accordingly, the order dated 28.07.2017 passed in

¶44

IA.No.1230 of 2015 in OS.No.346 of 2011 on the file of the Additional

¶45

District Munsif, Poonamallee is set aside and this civil revision petition is allowed with above limited purpose. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No order as to costs.

¶46

27.07.2021

¶47

Speaking/Non-speaking order Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No lok

¶48

6/8

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶50

CRP.PD.No.2655 of 2018

¶51

¶52