GANAPATHY Vs. MAHESHKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the 2nd plaintiff in O.S. No. 260 of 1998 on the file of the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore. The said suit has been filed for declaration of title for the suit property in favour of the plaintiffs and for recovery of vacant possession. The suit was originally filed by one Rajavel. Pending suit, he died. The 2nd plaintiff, the revision petitioner herein has been brought on record as the legal representative of the deceased, sole plaintiff. The respondents are the defendants in the said suit. During the trial of the said suit, on the side of the defendant, DW-2 was examined. In the place of chief examination, his proof affidavit was filed and the defendants attempted to mark two lease deeds dated 06.05.1985 and 28.08.1991, which have been drawn on unstamped papers and they are not registered. The lease in question, admittedly, is agricultural lease. At that point of time, the petitioner herein filed an application in I.A. No. 242 of 2011 requesting the court to reject the above documents and not to admit the same in evidence. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was contended before the trial court that the above lease deeds dated 06.05.1985 and 28.08.1991 are inadmissible in evidence for want of registration and for want of stamp duty.

(2.) In the counter filed by the 2nd defendant before the trial court, it was contended, among other things, that Section 117 of The Transfer of Property Act exempts agricultural leases from the purview of the Act and further, as per Article 35 of The Stamp Act, such deeds are exempted from stamp duty.

(3.) But, by order dated 09.11.2011, the trial court, without answering the said questions, held that these two documents are sought to be used only for a collateral purpose viz., to prove the character of possession and, therefore, they are admissible in evidence. Challenging the same, the petitioner is now before this Court with this revision.