V. BHASKARA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a review petition against the order dated 3-4-1998 in CRP No. 3037 of 1996.

( 2 ) THE Review Petition arises in the following circumstances. Sri A. Panduranga Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioners was not keeping good health for some time during the period preceding 3-4-1998. The Civil revision Petition was adjourned several times on that ground and ultimately the order under review has been passed after hearingsri M. Raja Malla Reddy, learned Counsel for the respondents. Aggrieved by that order, this Review petition is filed.

( 3 ) SRI A. Panduranga Rao, (sic.) learned Counsel for the respondent has been heard at length in the main Civil Revision Petition which is directed against the docket order dated 9-8-1996 in O. S. No. 2 of 1989 on the file of the subordinate Judge, Sanga Reddy.

( 4 ) THE following question has been formulated for consideration by the learned Subordinate Judge, "whether the document in question is an award, compulsorily registrable under Section 49 read with Section 17 (l) (c) of the Registration Act and if so whether it is admissible in evidence. "

( 5 ) AFTER setting out the pleas of both sides, the contents of the document in question have been considered and it has been held that the document is an award and it is compulsorily registrable and also requires stamp. It is further held that the recitals in the document do not reveal the nature of the property, possession or status of the parties except creating rights thereunder, and hence, it cannot be marked even for collateral purpose. It is, however, noteworthy that in the preceding para, the learned Judge held that the document in question can belooked into for collateral purpose of knowing about the nature of property as contended by the learned Counsel for the defendants. The conclusion is that the document cannot be marked even for collateral purpose. It is this order that is impugned in the Civil Revision Petition.

( 6 ) SRI A. Pandu Ranga Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioners, has taken me through the document in question and he mainly contended that it is not an arbitration award and in any event it is admissible in evidence for collateral purpose namely, nature of possession of the revision petitioners over the plaint schedule land. His thrust of argument was that there was no division by metes and bounds through this document and hence it cannot be held that it is inadmissible. He relied on Venkata Subbaiah vs. Subbamma, Roshan Singh vs. Zile Singh and Bakhtawar Singh vs. Gurdev Singh. He also relied on a judgment of Madras High Court in C. S. Kumarasrvami Gounder vs. Aravagiri Gounder. He pointed out that the ratio laid down in judgment cited (4 supra) has been relied on by this Court in S. Lakshmaiah vs. S. Peddamalhiah, and argued that this Court has been consistently holding that an unregistered document is admissible for the collateral purpose of proving the nature of possession as well as factum of possession and relied on the decision in S. B. Taramma vs. D. Narasaiah.

( 7 ) ON the other hand, Sri M. Raja Malla Reddy, learned Counsel for therespondents contended that the nature of the document is an arbitration award and inasmuch as the arbitrators have effected division of the properties among the sharers the lower Court has rightly held that it is compulsorily registrable and hence inadmissible in evidence. Adverting to the contentions of Sri A. Pandu Ranga Rao, he contended that there is no recital in the document that possession was delivered to any of the parties thereunder and that the factum of possession and enjoyment of the property which is sought to be established by the revision petitioners is not a collateral purpose as held by this Court in Ghousia Bee vs. Rajan Bee. He also referred to Montey Appala Raju vs. Kotteti Talupulamma and Lachman Dass vs. Ram Lal, m support of his contentions.

( 8 ) I have carefully considered the rival contentions. It is necessary to lookinto the factual

Click Here to Read the rest of this document