Disposed¶36

Seetharaman v. The Tashildar

Madras HC7 Feb 2025CRP(MD)/320/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

unregistered and unstamped partition deed dated 22.11.1974 — xerox copy — marking of document in evidence — collateral purposes — compulsory registrability — impounding of document — payment of stamp duty — original document required for impounding — Article 227 Constitution of India — Civil Revision Petition — District Munsif Court, Kovilpatti — O.S.No.71 of 2020 — I.A.No.23 of 2024 — C.R.P(MD)No.320 of 2025 — C.M.P(MD)No.1840 of 2025 — Madurai Bench of Madras High Court — Justice R. Vijayakumar — order dated 07.02.2025 — Thoothukudi District.

What did the court decide?

The partition deed dated 22.11.1974 reveals that partition was effected under it and it is not a record of past events; therefore, it is a compulsorily registerable document. ¶29

Seetharaman Vs The Tashildar — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the xerox copy of an unregistered, unstamped partition deed can be marked in evidence, or otherwise looked into, even for collateral purposes, without the document being impounded and stamp duty paid; and whether the trial Court rightly rejected I.A.No.23 of 2024 seeking to mark such copy.

¶24

Court's answer

The partition deed dated 22.11.1974 reveals that partition was effected under it and it is not a record of past events; therefore, it is a compulsorily registerable document.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

Unless the document is impounded and stamp duty is paid, it cannot be looked into even for collateral purposes.

¶29

Key takeaways

For impounding a document, the original has to be produced before the Court; in the present case only a xerox copy of the partition deed was produced.ratio¶29
Since only a xerox copy was produced, it would not be possible for the Court to impound the document for the purpose of collecting stamp duty.ratio¶29
The trial Court rightly rejected the application to mark the xerox copy of the unregistered, unstamped partition deed, and there are no merits in the revision petition.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), R. Vijayakumar, J., 07.02.2025 (C.R.P(MD)No.320 of 2025): A partition deed dated 22.11.1974 under which partition was actually effected — and which is not a mere record of past events — is a compulsorily registerable document. Until such a document is impounded and stamp duty is paid, it cannot be looked into even for collateral purposes. Impounding requires production of the original document; where the plaintiff sought to mark only a xerox copy of the unregistered, unstamped partition deed (I.A.No.23 of 2024 in O.S.No.71 of 2020, District Munsif, Kovilpatti), the Court could not impound it for collection of stamp duty, and the trial Court rightly rejected the application. The Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was disposed of with the observation that if the original document is produced, the Court may impound it and, after collecting stamp duty, consider it for collateral purposes.

¶1

C.R.P(MD)No.320 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 07.02.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶6

C.R.P(MD)No.320 of 2025 and

¶7

C.M.P(MD)No.1840 of 2025

¶8

Seetharaman

¶9

... Petitioner/Petitioner/

¶10

Plaintiff

¶11

Vs.

¶12

1.The Tahsildar, Kovilpatti Taluk, Thoothukudi District.

¶13

2.The District Revenue Officer, District Collector Office, Thoothukudi District.

¶14

3.The District Collector, District Collectorate Office, Thoothukudi District.

¶15

... Respondents/ Respondents/ Defendants

¶16

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order of the learned District Munsif Judge, Kovilpatti in I.A.No.23 of 2024 in

¶17

1/5

¶18

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

¶19

C.R.P(MD)No.320 of 2025

¶20

O.S.No.71 of 2020, dated 19.11.2024 on the file of the learned District Munsif Judge, Kovilpatti.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Prabu For Respondents : Mr.S.P.Maharajan Special Government Pleader

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The plaintiff in O.S.No.71 of 2020 on the file of District Munsif, Kovilpatti is the revision petitioner herein.

¶24

The above said suit was filed for the relief of declaration, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction. Pending suit, the plaintiff had filed I.A.No.23 of 2024 to mark the xerox copy of an unregistered, unstamped partition deed. The said application was rejected by the trial Court on the ground that even for collateral purposes, this document cannot be considered. Challenging the same, this revision petition has been filed.

¶25

2/5

¶26

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

¶27

C.R.P(MD)No.320 of 2025

¶28

A perusal of the partition deed, dated 22.11.1974 reveals that

¶29

partition has been effected under the said document and it is not a record of the past events. Therefore, it is a compulsorily registerable document. Unless the document is impounded and stamp duty is paid, the said document cannot be looked into even for collateral purposes. For impounding a document, original has to be produced before the Court. In the present case, only a xerox copy of the said partition deed has been produced. In such circumstances, it would not be possible for the Court to impound the document for the purposes of collecting the stamp duty. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly rejected the said application.

¶30

In view of the above said deliberations, there are no merits in

¶31

the revision petition. However, if the plaintiff produces the original document before the Court, it is for the Court to impound the same and after collecting stamp duty, it may be considered for collateral purposes.

¶32

3/5

¶33

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

¶34

C.R.P(MD)No.320 of 2025

¶35