Admissibility of unregistered partition deed depends on whether it records past transactions or creates rights inpraesenti.

The plaintiffs (Petitioners) filed a suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession, and mesne profits regarding twelve items of property.

They claimed the properties were allotted to their predecessor, Kaliyamoorthy, via an oral family arrangement later recorded in an unregistered "partition chit" dated May 31, 1948.

The defendants denied this arrangement, asserting the properties were allotted to their predecessor, Venkatachalam, and that the 1948 document was invalid.

During the trial, the plaintiffs sought to mark the 1948 partition chit as evidence.

The Trial Court (Subordinate Judge, Ariyalur) dismissed the application (I.A. No. 650 of 2018), holding that the unstamped and unregistered document could not be received even for collateral purposes.

The plaintiffs challenged this order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Whether an unregistered and unstamped partition chit that allegedly records a past oral family arrangement is admissible in evidence.

Whether the admissibility and stamp duty requirements of a document must be decided at the inception of trial when its nature (recording past vs. creating present rights) is ambiguous.

The court applied the principles governing the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and the Registration Act, 1908.

Specifically, a family arrangement reduced to writing that creates, declares, or extinguishes rights in praesenti in immovable property requires compulsory stamping and registration.

Relying on A.C. Lakshmipathi v. A.M. Chakrapani Reddiar (2001 (1) CTC 112), the court noted that while a document recording a past oral partition does not require registration, an unstamped and unregistered document cannot be used even for collateral purposes if it creates substantive rights.

Furthermore, regarding the timing of such objections, the court referenced Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat ((2001) 3 SCC 1), which generally requires stamp duty issues to be decided at the inception.

The High Court observed that the 1948 document used conflicting language: the title employed the past tense (suggesting a record of a past transaction), whereas the body used the future tense (suggesting the creation of rights in praesenti).

Because the true intent and nature of the document could not be determined on a bare reading in isolation, the Court reasoned that the Trial Court erred in dismissing it summarily.

The Court held that when admissibility depends on a question of fact—specifically whether the document merely records a previous oral arrangement—the document should be marked "tentatively".

By recording objections and deferring a final ruling on admissibility and stamp duty until the conclusion of evidence, the Trial Court can better assess the document’s nature through the lens of oral testimony.

It held that the Trial Court shall receive and mark the 1948 partition chit tentatively, recording all objections regarding registration and stamp duty.

The final decision on admissibility shall be deferred until the conclusion of the trial.

If the document is found to record a past transaction, it shall be admitted; if found to create rights in praesenti, it shall be rejected as the prayer for recovery of possession precludes a plea of "collateral purpose".

The Registry was directed to return the original document to the Trial Court securely.