Kamatchi (died) vs JOTHI

Court
Madras High Court

CRP No. 4690 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
CRP No. 4690 of 2026
and
CMP Nos.29967 & 20585 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012639512025}
1. Kamatchi (died)
S/o. Govindasami,
Nagathamman Koil Street,
Sirungundram Village,
Chengalpattu Taluk,
Kancheepuram District.
2. Balabadran
S/o. Govidasami.
Nagathamman Koil Street,
Sirungundram Village,
Chengalpattu Taluk,
Kancheepuram District.
3. Veerasamy
S/o. Govidasami.
Nagathamman Koil Street,
Sirungundram Village,
Chengalpattu Taluk,
Kancheepuram District.
4. Mohan
S/o. Govidasami.
Nagathamman Koil Street,
Sirungundram Village,
Chengalpattu Taluk,
Kancheepuram District.
__________
Page1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:55:39 pm )

CRP No. 4690 of 2026
5. Govindammal
W/o. Chakrapani Naicker,
Pall Theru,
Illaur Village,
Kancheepuram District.
6. Govindasami
S/o. Perumal Naicker,
Muthumari Aman koil Street,
Karunilam Village and Post,
via S.P.Koil,
Chengalpattu Taluk.
7. G.thanigaiyarasu @ Thaniga arasu
S/o. N.P.govindasami Naicker,
No.1/19, Muthumari amman Koil Street,
Karumari Amman Koil Street,
Karunilam Village,
Chengalpattu Taluk,
Chengalpattu District.
8. G.Arumugham,
S/o. N.P.Govindasami Naicker,
No.1/19, Muthumari amman Koil Street,
Karumari Amman Koil Street,
Karunilam Village,
Chengalpattu Taluk,
Chengalpattu District.
9. G.Saraswathi
W/o.N.P.Govindasami Naicker,
No.1/19, Muthumari amman Koil Street,
Karumari Amman Koil Street,
Karunilam Village,
Chengalpattu Taluk, Chengalpattu District.
10.S.Venkatesan
S/o.N.P.Govindasami Naicker,
No.1/19, Muthumari amman Koil Street,
Karumari Amman Koil Street,
Karunilam Village,
Chengalpattu Taluk,
Chengalpattu District.
__________
Page2 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:55:39 pm )

CRP No. 4690 of 2026
11.Shanthi
W/o. Dhanasekaran,
No.8th Cross Stret, Trustpuram,
Kodambakkam
Chennai
12.Arunkumar
S/o. Late Dhanasekaran,
No.8th Cross Stret, Trustpuram,
Kodambakkam
Chennai
13.Devika
D/o. Late Dhanasekaran,
No.8th Cross Stret, Trustpuram,
Kodambakkam
Chennai
14.Subramani,
S/o. Late Marimuthu,
residing at 8th cross street, Trustpuram
Kodambakkam,
chennai
15.Sulochana
W/o. Late Arumugham,
8th Cross Street,
Trustpuram,
Kodambakkam
Chennai
16.Naveenkumar
S/o. Late Arumugham,
8th Cross Street,
Trustpuram,
Kodambakkam, Chennai
17.Sowmiya
D/o. Late Arumugham,
8th Cross Street,
Trustpuram, Kodambakkam
Chennai
__________
Page3 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:55:39 pm )

CRP No. 4690 of 2026
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
Jothi
D/o.Late Perumal Naicker,
Residing at no.1/4, Muthumari amman Koil Street,
karunilam Vilage and Post, Via S.P.Koil,
Kancheepuram district.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer
Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution praying to set aside
the order dated 22.10.2025 passed by the Learned Additionl Subordinate Judge,
Chengalpattu in I.A.No.7 of 2025 in O.S.No.180 of 2015, in so far as it rejects
Document nos.1 and 2 filed by the petitioners under Order VIII Rule I-A (3)
CPC and Direct the trial court to receive documents 1 and 2 filed by the
petitioners under order VIII Rule 1-A (3) CPC, subject to proof and relevancy
and pass such further or other orders.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.Sam Jayaraj Houston
for M/S. SARVABHUMAN ASSOCIATES
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
__________
Page4 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:55:39 pm )

CRP No. 4690 of 2026
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
__________
Page5 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:55:39 pm )

CRP No. 4690 of 2026
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,
__________
Page6 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:55:39 pm )

CRP No. 4690 of 2026
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
__________
Page7 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:55:39 pm )

CRP No. 4690 of 2026
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.
__________
Page8 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:55:39 pm )

CRP No. 4690 of 2026
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.
__________
Page9 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:55:39 pm )

CRP No. 4690 of 2026
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
KP
CRP No. 4690 of 2026
03-11-2026
__________
Page10 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:55:39 pm )