Allowed¶31

Solai v. Pethi

Madras HC20 Feb 2026CRP(MD)/10/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

C.R.P.(MD).No.10 of 2026, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, N.Senthilkumar J, decided 20.02.2026. Keywords: unregistered sale deed dated 23.12.1989; marking of document in evidence; deficit stamp duty and penalty payment; I.A.No.3 of 2023; I.A.No.2 of 2022; O.S.No.294 of 2021; District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchuli; Section 49 of the Registration Act (raised by respondent's counsel, not decided); compliance recorded 22.12.2023; dismissal without verification of compliance unsustainable; impugned order set aside; revision allowed; no costs; Article 227 Constitution of India.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 11.11.2025 in I.A.No.2 of 2022 in O.S.No.294 of 2021 (District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Tiruchuli) set aside; Civil Revision Petition allowed with no costs; connected miscellaneous petition C.M.P.(MD).No.43 of 2026 closed.

Solai Vs Pethi — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court could dismiss I.A.No.2 of 2022 (seeking to mark an unregistered sale deed dated 23.12.1989) after the petitioner had already paid the deficit stamp duty and penalty pursuant to the earlier order in I.A.No.3 of 2023 and the compliance had been recorded.

¶23

Court's answer

Once the deficit stamp duty and penalty have been paid pursuant to the earlier order in I.A.No.3 of 2023 and the compliance has been recorded by the Trial Court, a subsequent dismissal of the application to mark the document, without proper verification of the earlier order and the compliance thereof, is unsustainable.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order passed in I.A.No.2 of 2022 in O.S.No.294 of 2021 on the file of the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Tiruchuli, is set aside and the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 11.11.2025 in I.A.No.2 of 2022 in O.S.No.294 of 2021 (District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Tiruchuli) dismissing the petition to mark an unregistered sale deed dated 23.12.1989 on the ground of non-registration. Earlier, in I.A.No.3 of 2023, the Trial Court had permitted admission of the deed in evidence on payment of stamp duty penalty; the deficit stamp duty of Rs.897/- and penalty of Rs.8970/- were paid and the compliance recorded on 22.12.2023. Held: once such payment is made and recorded, a subsequent dismissal without proper verification of the earlier order and the compliance thereof is unsustainable. Impugned order set aside; Civil Revision Petition allowed, no costs; connected C.M.P.(MD).No.43 of 2026 closed. (Madras High Court, Madurai Bench; N.Senthilkumar, J.; 20.02.2026.)

¶1

C.R.P.(MD).No.10 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 20.02.2026

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR

¶6

C.R.P.(MD).No.10 of 2026 and C.M.P.(MD).No.43 of 2026

¶7

Solai ... Petitioner / Petitioner / Defendant -vs.-

¶8

Pethi ... Respondent / Respondent / Plaintiff

¶9

PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to call for the records of the order dated 11.11.2025 passed in I.A.No.2 of 2022 in O.S.No.294 of 2021 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Tiruchuli and set aside the same by allowing the civil revision petition.

¶10

For Petitioner : M/s.N.Madhangi, for Mr.I.Suthakaran For Respondent : M/s.S.Susmitha, for M/s.Aran Legal Consultancy

¶11

1/5

¶12

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

¶13

C.R.P.(MD).No.10 of 2026

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order passed in I.A.No.2 of 2022 in O.S.No.294 of 2021 on the file of the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchuli. The said application was filed seeking to mark the fourth document, namely, an unregistered sale deed dated 23.12.1989. Earlier, in I.A.No.3 of 2023 filed by

¶16

the very same petitioner, the Trial Court had passed the following order: “4(5). On perusing the present case as per the dictum laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as the petitioners herein has come forward to pay the stamp duty penalty, this court is of the view the sale deed dated 23.12.1989 can be admitted in evidence after payment of stamp duty penalty. Hence in the interest of justice this Court is inclined to allow this petition.”

¶17

Pursuant to the said order, the deficit stamp duty and penalty were

¶18

paid by the revision petitioner and the same was recorded by the Trial Court as follows:

¶19

“Stamp duty Rs.897/- and Stamp duty penalty Rs.8970/- are collected and remitted as per challan nos.20231221003615, 20231220028380 dated 22.12.2023.”

¶20

2/5

¶21

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

¶22

C.R.P.(MD).No.10 of 2026

¶23

However, despite compliance with the above direction, the present impugned order came to be passed dismissing the application on the ground that the document cannot be marked as it is an unregistered document.

¶24

The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that once the deficit stamp duty and penalty have been paid pursuant to the earlier order in I.A.No.3 of 2023, and the same has been recorded by the Trial Court, the document ought to have been admitted in evidence, subject to proof and relevancy.

¶25

Per contra , the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that an unregistered document can be admitted in evidence only in accordance with Section 49 of the Registration Act, provided it is duly stamped.

¶26

This Court finds that pursuant to the order passed in I.A.No.3 of 2023, the deficit stamp duty and penalty amounting to Rs.8,970/- were paid by the revision petitioner and the same was duly recorded by the Trial Court on 22.12.2023. When such compliance has been made, the subsequent

¶27

3/5

¶28

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

¶29

C.R.P.(MD).No.10 of 2026

¶30

dismissal of the application without proper verification of the earlier order and compliance thereof is unsustainable.

¶31

Accordingly, the impugned order passed in I.A.No.2 of 2022 in O.S.No.294 of 2021 on the file of the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Tiruchuli, is set aside. In view of the above, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶32

20.02.2026

¶33