Subbuthai vs Balakrishnan

Court
Madras High Court

CRP(MD)No.2616 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 28/10/2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
CRP(MD) NO. 2616 of 2026
{CNR: HCMD011251112026}
Case QR
and
CMP(MD)No.13041 of 2026
Subbuthai : Petitioner/Respondent/Plaintiff
Vs.
Balakrishnan : Respondent/Petitioner/Defendant
Prayer:- This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of
Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order dated
03/07/2026 in IA No.1 of 2026 in OS No.41 of 2009 on the file of the
Additional District Munsif Court, Sankarankovil.
For Petitioner : Mrs.S.Mahalakshmi
For Respondent : Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:00:29 pm )

CRP(MD)No.2616 of 2026
O R D E R
This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by
the learned Trial Court in I.A No. of 2026 in O.S No.41 of 2009, dated
03/07/2026.
2.The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the suit, which has been
filed for the relief of permanent injunction. The respondent is the
defendant in the suit. The plaintiff claims title over the suit property on
the basis of a registered sale deed dated 22/07/2008. The respondent also
claims title over the suit property on the basis of two unregistered sale
deeds dated 27/07/2000 and 05/10/2005. Earlier, the respondent filed an
application before the Trial Court in I.A No.591 of 2011, seeking a
direction to determine the stamp duty payable on the aforesaid two sale
deeds, as they were unregistered documents. The said application was
allowed by the Trial Court on 12/12/2013, and the respondent thereafter
paid the requisite stamp duty and penalty. Subsequently, the respondent
sought to mark the aforesaid documents on his side in order to establish
his case. According to the respondent, he is in possession and enjoyment
of the suit property pursuant to the said sale deeds. The Trial Court
2/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:00:29 pm )

CRP(MD)No.2616 of 2026
allowed the application holding that the documents could be received in
evidence for the purpose of proving the nature and character of the suit
property. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred the
present Civil Revision Petition.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that
the documents in question, being unregistered sale deeds, are
inadmissible in evidence under Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908,
read with Order XIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It is
further contended that the documents cannot be relied upon to establish
title or any right in respect of the suit property. The petitioner would
submit that at best, the documents may be received in evidence for a
limited collateral purpose, namely, to prove possession, and not for
establishing the nature and character of the property or the title claimed
by the respondent. In view of the above circumstances, the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner prays for allowing the civil revision
petition, by setting aside the impugned order passed by the trial Court.
4.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent
3/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:00:29 pm )

CRP(MD)No.2616 of 2026
submitted that the documents are sought to be marked only for the limited
purpose of establishing the respondent's possession over the suit property
and not for the purpose of proving title. In support of his contention, the
learned counsel relied upon the following judgments:-
(i)In R.Munusamy Vs. G.Krishttappillai and others,
reported in 2014(6) CTC 773 , wherein this court has held in
para 12 and 13 as follows:-
“ 12. Further, this Court, in the decision reported in
2010 (1) MWN (Civil) 534 ( Durai @ Subrayan Vs. Anandan ),
while considering the very same issue in respect of a suit for
permanent injunction, has followed the decision of the
Honourable Supreme Court in   Bondar Singh 's case (cited
supra) and observed in paragraphs 10 and 16 as follows:
"10. The fate of non-registration of the documents require
to be registered under the aforesaid provision of law has
been dealt with under  Section 49  of the Registration Act,
1908. A document required to be registered but not
registered shall not be received as evidence of any
transaction affecting such property as per   section 49  of the
Registration Act, 1908. But, there is a proviso found
thereunder which reads that such an unregistered document
affecting immovable property can be received as evidence
in a suit for specific performance filed invoking the
4/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:00:29 pm )

CRP(MD)No.2616 of 2026
provision under the Specific Relief Act, 1877. The proviso
would further read that such an unregistered document
affecting immovable property can also be received as
evidence of any collateral transaction, which transaction is
not required to be effected by registered instruments."
"16.Reverting back to the ratio  laid down by  the
Supreme Court in   Bondar Singh Vs. Nihal Singh , 2003 (2) CTC
635 (SC) : AIR 2003 SC 1905, the Court finds that an
unstamped and unregistered sale deed can very well be looked
into, even if the same was not admissible in evidence, to
establish the nature of possession of the party concerned over
the suit property."
13.Thus, a perusal of the above referred to decisions of
the Apex Court as well as this Court, would make it clear that
the unregistered sale deed can be marked as evidence and
looked into only for the collateral purpose of finding the nature
of possession of the property concerned.”
(ii)In Ramachandran and others Vs. Guruvi Reddy,
reported in 2015(3) MWN (Civil) 366 , wherein this court has
held in paras 11 and 12 as follows:-
“10.In the case on hand, the plaintiff has filed
the suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction,
recovery of possession and for mesne profits. In the
written statement, in paragraph No.5, the defendants
5/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:00:29 pm )

CRP(MD)No.2616 of 2026
have stated that they are in possession of the suit
property measuring an extent of 4.76 acres since the
exchange deed dated 19.03.1908. Now, in order to
establish that they have been in possession of the suit
property since 19.03.1908, they seek to mark the
document to prove their possession. The purpose for
marking the document by the defendants would clearly
establish that it is for collateral purpose. They are not
claiming any right or title over the suit property by
virtue of the exchange deed dated 19.03.1908. Even in
the affidavit itself they have stated that the document is
being marked only for proving their possession over
the suit property. The collateral transaction does not
create, extinguish title, interest or right etc., in the suit
property.
11.In the judgment reported in 2003(4) SCC 161
(cited supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that even a
sale deed that is inadmissible in evidence can be
looked into for collateral purpose. As already stated,
the collateral purpose in the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court is the nature of possession over the suit
land.”
6/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:00:29 pm )

CRP(MD)No.2616 of 2026
5.By relying upon the aforesaid judgments, the learned counsel
appearing for the respondent prays for the dismissal of the civil revision
petition.
6.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused
the materials available on record.
7.On consideration of the rival submissions and the judgments
relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent, this Court is of the
view that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner if the documents
in question are received in evidence for the limited purpose of proving the
respondent's possession over the suit property. However, the documents
cannot be relied upon for establishing title or for proving the nature and
character of the suit property.
8.In view of the above, this Court is inclined to modify the order
passed by the Trial Court. The portion of the order permitting the
respondent to mark the documents for the purpose of proving the nature
and character of the suit property is hereby set aside. The respondent is
7/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:00:29 pm )

CRP(MD)No.2616 of 2026
permitted to mark the aforesaid documents only for the limited purpose of
proving his possession over the suit property and not for any other
purpose.
9.Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of . The
order passed by the Trial Court is modified to the extent indicated above.
No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
28/10/2026
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
er
To,
1.The Additional District Munsif Court,
Sankarankovil.
2.The Section Officer,
VR/ER Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
8/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:00:29 pm )

R.POORNIMA.,J
er
CRP(MD)No.2616 of 2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:00:29 pm )