01Facts
The respondent filed a partition suit seeking, among other reliefs, allotment of a 1/5th share.
The petitioners/defendants applied to receive additional documents under Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) CPC. The trial court allowed documents 3–37 but rejected Document No. 1, an unregistered and insufficiently stamped release deed, and Document No. 2, a photocopy of a patta.
pp. 4–5The defendants challenged the rejection of those two documents under Article 227 of the Constitution
pp. 4–5Before the High Court, petitioners’ counsel stated that they would obtain and file a computerised patta
p. 802Issues
i.1. Whether the unregistered and insufficiently stamped release deed could be received in the partition suit for a collateral purpose, subject to payment of stamp duty and penalty
p. 5, 8ii.2. Whether the photocopy of the patta could be received, or the petitioners could instead file a computerised patta before the trial court
pp. 5, 8–903Law Applied
Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 bars an unstamped instrument from being admitted in evidence until the applicable stamp duty and penalty are paid following impounding.
The Supreme Court decisions in Yellapu Uma Maheswari and Sita Ram Bhama, as discussed in the judgment, establish that in a partition suit an unregistered instrument may be considered for a collateral purpose, but not for its primary purpose, once it has been impounded and the requisite duty and penalty have been paid; its use remains subject to proof and relevance
pp. 6–8Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Indian Stamp Act, 1899 Section 35
04Reasoning
The High Court treated Document No. 1 as an unregistered release deed that was insufficiently stamped. Applying the Supreme Court authorities on collateral use of instruments in partition suits, it held that the deed could be brought before the trial court, impounded, and considered for collateral purposes after payment of stamp duty and penalty, subject to proof and relevance
pp. 5–8As to Document No. 2, the petitioners undertook to obtain a computerised patta; the Court therefore left it open to them to file and seek to mark that document before the trial court
pp. 8–905Holding
Document No. 1 may be received for consideration for collateral purposes after impounding and payment of the required stamp duty and penalty, subject to proof and relevance.
pp. 8–9The petitioners may file the computerised patta before the trial court
pp. 8–9The High Court modified the trial court’s order concerning Documents 1 and 2. The revision petition was disposed of with no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed
p. 9Original Court PDF
Kamatchi (died)vsJOTHI
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
