( 1 ) THE petitioners are the plaintiffs aggrieved by order, dated 25-7-2003, in o. S. No. 27 of 1995, they filed the present civil revision petitioner under Article 227 of constitution of India.

( 2 ) THE first petitioner is the wife of second petitioner, and is daughter of the first respondent. The petitioners filed the suit being O. S. No. 27 of 1995 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, addanki for declaration of title and for injunction in respect of items 1 to 3 of suit schedule property. Item 1 is the land to an extent of Acs. 0. 80 and items 2 and 3 are the lands to an extent of Acs. 0. 60 each. These agricultural lands are identified by patta No. 26 in survey No. 359 admeasuring acs. 5. 59 (total extent ). At the time of the trial, the plaintiffs sought to mark an agreement of sale, dated 4-4-1979, executed in their favour by respondents 1 to 3 (defendants 1 to 3) An objection was raised by the Counsel for defendants 4 to 10/ respondents 4 o 10 herein on two grounds, namely, the document offered as evidence is a sale deed and as it is improperly stamped the same cannot be admitted in evidence, and secondly, being a sale deed, in the absence of registration, it cannot be marked as evidence. By impugned order, the trial court came to a conclusion that the suit document, which was sought to be marked as Ex. A. 1 cannot be marked, as it is not registered and not properly stamped.

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri VLNGK Murthy, submits that when the nature of the document is to be found out, the Court is required to refer to the averments and clauses in the document and any reference to the pleadings is impermissible. Secondly, he submits that when an objection is raised for marking a document as evidence, the court has to mark such document recording the objection and at the stage of trial, permission to mark the document cannot be refused unless an objection is raised regarding improper stamp duty. Thirdly, he submits that the document, dated 4-4-1979, executed by respondents 1 to 3 herein in favour of the petitioners is the document, which records the gift given by the first respondent in favour of first petitioner at the time of marriage, and is an agreement of sale requiring the vendors to execute proper sale deed later and therefore the stamp duty paid is proper.

( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondents 4 to 10, Mr. Adinarayana, submits that his clients filed suit for possession in O. S. No. 194 of 1971 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, addanki, which was dismissed but the Sub- court, Ongole, in A. S. No. 12 of 1982 allowed the appeal and decreed the suit for possession. When the contesting respondents filed E. P. No. 5 of 1995, the petitioners filed the suit OS No. 27 of 1995 in collusion with respondents 1 to 3 by creating false document. He submits that under the disputed document, the entire right, title and interest of respondents 1 to 3 passed to the petitioners and therefore being a sale deed, the same cannot be received as evidence for want of registration. The learned Counsel also submits that under the same document, item 1 was gifted by respondents 1 to 3 in favour of the first petitioner, and unless and until it is properly stamped and registered being a gift deed, the same cannot be registered as evidence.

( 5 ) SECTION 3 of the Indian Stamp act, 1899 (Stamp Act, for brevity) is a charging section and requires the instruments enumerated therein chargeable with duty of the amount indicated in the schedule as proper duty thereof. Section 35 of the stamp Act mandates that an instrument chargeable with duty cannot be admitted in evidence by any person having authority to receive evidence if such instrument is not properly/duly stamped. Section 36 of the stamp Act further postulates that when an instrument is admitted in evidence, such admission shall not be called in question at any stage of the suit or proceeding on the ground that the instrument has

Click Here to Read the rest of this document