ORDER
G. Rohini, J.
1. This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 7-3-2005 in I.A.No. 462 of 2004 in O.S.No. 9 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan.
2. The defendants 1 and 3 in the suit are the Revision petitioners. The 1st respondent herein, who being a minor represented by his motherfiled the suit for partition and separate possession of his share in the suit schedule properties. The defendants 1 and 3/ Revision petitioners filed the written statement contesting the suit claim. During the course of the trial, the defendants 1 and 3 sought to produce an unregistered settlement deed as evidence on their behalf. The said document was also not properly stamped. On an objection raised by the plaintiff, the Court impounded the said document and by order dated 3-12-2004 a sum of Rs. 21,510/-towards the deficit stamp duty together with penalty of Rs. 2,15,100/- was directed to be collected. Admittedly, the said order has become final since the defendants 1 and 3 did not choose to question the same. It is also not in dispute that they did not pay the deficit stamp duty and penalty as per the order dated 3-12-2004. However, subsequently they filed I. A.No. 462 of 2004 with a prayer to admit in evidence the very same document for collateral purpose contending that the said document is admissible in evidence for establishing collateral transaction, for which purpose registration of the document is not necessary.
3. The plaintiff filed a counter opposing the said application stating that in spite of the order of the Court impounding the document, the defendants 1 and 3 failed to pay the deficit stamp duty as well as the penalty as per the order dated 3-12-2004 and therefore the petition is misconceived and untenable. It was also stated that the plea that the document in question was necessary to establish the collateral transaction is false and incorrect and that it is nothing but an attempt to drag on the suit proceedings.
4. The Court below, having heard both the parties, by order dated 7-3-2005 dismissed the petition holding that unless the deficit stamp duty and penalty are paid, it cannot be admitted in evidence even for collateral purpose. The said order is under challenge in this Revision Petition.
5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.
6. Despite notice, the respondents did not choose to appear either in person or through duly instructed counsel.
7. As noted above, admittedly the document in question is an unregistered document and it is also not properly stamped. When the said document was sought to be tendered in evidence, the Court below has . earlier passed an order impounding the document, by virtue of which the Revision petitioners were required to pay a sum of Rs. 2,36,510/- towards deficit stamp duty and penalty under the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Admittedly, the said order has become final, but the Revision petitioners failed to comply with the same. However, the very same document is now sought to be admitted in evidence purportedly for a collateral purpose.
8. The law is well settled that though an unregistered document is admissible in evidence for a collateral purpose, an unstamped or insufficiently stamped document cannot be looked into for any purpose.
9. While considering an identical question with regard to the admissibility of an unregistered partition deed, it has been held in a series of decisions that such a document can be looked into only for the purpose of finding out whether there has been severance in status, [refer Naini Bai v. Gita Bai, : [1959]1SCR479 and Rukma Bai v. Lakshmi Narayana, : [1960]2SCR253 ]
10. In Muthyala Reddy v. Venkata Reddy, : AIR1969AP242 a Full Bench of five Judges of this Court having reviewed all the decided cases on the said issue, explained the legal position as under:
'Where a partition takes place, the terms of which are incorporated in an unregistered document, that document is inadmissible in evidence and cannot be looked for the terms of the partition. It is in fact the source of title to the property held by each of the erstwhile coparceners. That document, though unregistered, can, however, be looked into for the purpose of establishing a severance in status, though that severance would ultimately affect the nature of the possession held by the members of the separated family who from thence onwards, hold it as co-tenants. It is now a well-established principle of Hindu Law that, for a severance in status, all that is required is a communication to the other members of the joint family, of an unequivocal intention to separate. This communication of intention could be done orally or by a notice in writing to the other coparceners, or by other means depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. If the intention is expressed by reducing the same to writing such a document, though unregistered, is admissible and can be looked into, as long as it is not the source of title of any of the properties which each of the erstwhile coparceners hold as a result of that partition.'
11. In the light of the settled legal principles, it is clear that an unstamped instrument is not at all admissible in evidence even for a collateral purpose However, such an unregistered instrument which was originally unstamped, if duly stamped subsequently, can be admitted in evidence even though it continues to be unregistered, for a collateral purpose but the actual terms of the transaction cannot be looked into.
12. In the case on hand, admittedly the document is not only unregistered but also insufficiently stamped. That apart, on an objection raised by the plaintiff, the Court below has already passed an order directing impounding of the document which stood uncomplied with. In the circumstances, since admittedly as on to-day the document in question remained insufficiently stamped, the same cannot be admitted in evidence even for a collateral purpose. The Court below has rightly dismissed the application filed under Section 49 of the Registration Act. The impugned order which does not suffer from any patent error of fact or law, does not warrant the interference by this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
13. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.