This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 20.01.2017 made in Memo in O.S.No.175 of 2012 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Attur.
2. The petitioner is the second defendant, first respondent is the plaintiff and second respondent is the first defendant in O.S.No.175 of 2012. The first respondent filed the suit for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff's = share in the suit properties through preliminary and final decree for partition and to declare the sale deed dated 25.02.2004 bearing Document No.241/2004 is null and void and not valid and not binding on the first respondent and not executed for any legal necessities by the second respondent to the petitioner and consequentially, restraining the defendant No.2 from alienating the suit properties to third parties. The petitioner and second respondent filed written statements on 29.04.2013 and 19.04.2013 respectively and are contesting the suit.
3. While the petitioner was cross examined as D.W.2, first respondent produced an agreement of compromise entered into between the petitioner and first respondent before the Panchayat. The petitioner admitted the signature and thumb impression on the said document and stated that it was entered before the Panchayat. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a memo to reject the said document on the ground that he has not signed and put thumb impression, the document was brought by threat and coercion, the document was not stamped and registered and therefore, it is not admissible. First respondent filed his objection to the memo filed by the petitioner and has stated that the petitioner admitted the signature and his thumb impression in the said compromise before the Panchayat. His father was present at the time of the Panchayat and compromise entered before the Panchayat is not liable to be stamped and must be compulsorily registered. Even if it has to be stamped, the Court can impound the document and on payment of stamp duty and penalty, the said document can be marked.
4. The learned Judge rejected the memo filed by the petitioner on the ground that the alleged compromise agreement does not create any right over the immovable property. Therefore, it is not compulsorily registerable.
5. Against the order dated 20.01.2017 made in Memo in O.S.No.175 of 2012, the present civil revision petition is filed by the petitioner/second defendant.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.
7. The grievance of the petitioner in the civil revision petition is that the alleged compromise agreement is to be stamped and it has to be registered and the said document is not admissible as it is not registered and not required and required stamp duty is not paid. The Court has power under Order 13 Rule 2 of C.P.C. to reject any document at any stage of the suit, if it is in admissible or irrelevant to the issue in the suit.
8. From the materials available on record, it is seen that as per the compromise, the petitioner has to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the first respondent and on receiving the said sum, the first respondent will withdraw the suit and both the parties will withdraw the complaint given before the police.
9. Considering the terms of compromise, the learned Judge held that the said compromise does not create any right or interest or title over the immovable property and hence, not compulsorily registerable. In these circumstances, there is no illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court with the order of the learned trial Judge, dated 20.01.2017.
10. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.