SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(AP) 246

G.BIKSHAPATHY
Palreddigarl Harinatha Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Palreddygari Siddamma – Respondent


G. BIKSHAPATHY, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition is filed against the orders dated 26-3-1999 made in O. S. No. 400 of 1996 on the file of learned Senior Civil judge, Filer, refusing to admit the document dated 16-4-1979 said to be filed by the petitioner-11th defendant. The said document was dated 16-4-1979. The suit was filed for partition of the suit schedule properties and for separate possession. During the course of the evidence of petitioner-llth defendant, he tried to introduce the document dated 16-4-1979 to the effect that the partition of the properties were already effected in the year 1976 and the document was drawn up only on 16-4-1979 for acknowledgment of such a partition. But an objection was raised by the plaintiffs-respondent Nos. 1 to 3 on the ground that the said document cannot be taken into evidence as it is compulsorily registrable document under Section 17 (l) (b) of the Indian Registration Act, and, therefore, the document has to be rejected. The lower Court considered the matter and agreed with the contention of the plaintiffs and held that the document has created fresh rights between the parties and therefore, it is compulsorily registrable document. Again







Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top