1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 31-1-2007 passed in O.S.No.22 of 2003 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, (FTC) Nandyal, whereby and where under the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge sustained the objection of the 1st defendant with regard to admissibility of two rental deeds dated 1-8-2001 and 28-4-2003 respectively and directed the plaintiff to pay necessary stamp duty and penalty for exhibiting the rental deeds on her behalf.

2. The background facts leading to filing of this Civil Revision Petition by the plaintiff in O.S.No.22 of 2003 are:-

Nookala Krishnaiah filed suit O.S.No.22 of 2003 for cancellation of the gift deed dated 18-10-2000 obtained by the 1st defendant-Nookala Dakshina Murthy as the same is void and vitiated by fraud. The plaintiff died and plaintiff No.2 and defendants 2 to 6 came to be brought on record as his legal representatives as per orders in I.A.No.894 of 2005 and I.A.462 of 2006 dated 17-10-2006. Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 and second plaintiff are no other than the children of deceased-1st plaintiff. Defendant Nos.5 and 6 are the children of Punyamurthi Sukanya who is the daughter of the deceased 1st plaintiff. It was the contention of the deceased-plaintiff that the 1st defendant who is no other than his son obtained a gift deed dated 18-10-2000 in his name by playing fraud and therefore he sought for cancellation of gift deed. After the death of deceased plaintiff, plaintiff No.2 who is one of the daughters came on record claiming to be legatee under the Will said to have been executed by deceased plaintiff on 9-6-2004.

3. 1st defendant filed written statement disputing the claim of deceased plaintiff as well as plaintiff No.2. During the course of trial, the 2nd plaintiff introduced two lease deeds said to have been executed by deceased plaintiff in favour of Mohd. Hussain in respect of the suit schedule property. First rental deed dated 1-8-2001 is for one year under which deceased plaintiff-Nookala Krishnaiah is stated to have received entire annual rent of Rs.30,000/- in advance in respect of ground floor as well as upstair portion of the suit schedule house. Whereas the rental deed dated 28-4-2003 executed by deceased plaintiff -Nookala Krishnaiah in favour of Mohd. Hussain is in respect of upstair portion of the suit schedule house. The rent agreed between the parties is Rs.1,000/- and the period of lease is for five years. When these two rental deeds are sought to be marked on behalf of the 2nd plaintiff, 1st defendant raised an objection with regard to the admissibility of the documents on twin reasons. Firstly, they are not properly stamped and secondly, they are unregistered.

4. The 2nd plaintiff contended before the trial Court that the two rental deeds are sought to be marked for collateral purpose and therefore no stamp duty is payable on the said documents.

5. The learned Senior Civil Judge, on reading the two rental deeds and on considering the rival contentions of the parties, came to the conclusion that two rental deeds are inadmissible in evidence for want of proper stamp duty and thereby sustained the objection raised by the 1st defendant by order dated 31-1-2007. The said order is under challenge in this revision.

6. I deem it appropriate to refer para 15 to 17 of the order impugned in the C.R.P. and they are as under:

“Section 35 of the Stamp Act prohibits that the document shall not be acted upon by the Court in any manner. The importance of the significant words “No instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any person or shall be acted upon, registered or authenticated by any such person or by any public officer, unless such instrument is duly stamped.

In as much as the document is not stamped, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not admissible, in evidence for any purpose.

In the result, I find that the lease deeds filed by the plaintiff are not admissible in e