Nooty. Ramamohana Rao, J.

1. The defendant in the suit filed this revision challenging the correctness of the decision of the learned V Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) Rajahmundry holding that the document dated 08.08.1962 sought to be marked by the petitioner herein as inadmissible in evidence, for want of registration and also for non-payment of necessary stamp duty thereon.

2. The petitioner was the defendant in the suit instituted for partition of the suit schedule properties. During the course of examination of D.W. 1, a document dated 08.08.1962 which is reduced on a plain paper and which is not registered and which has not suffered any stamp duty is sought to be introduced and marked on behalf of the defendant. When an objection was taken, the Court had examined the recitals of the document and found that though it is shown to be a mere enumeration of shares of the sharers of an earlier oral partition, but however the recitals disclosed division of properties amongst all the sharers and hence the Court held that the document is compulsorily registerable and it is also liable to be suffered stamp duty. That gave raise to this Civil Revision Petition.

3. Heard Sri J. Sreenivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents.

4. It is the contention of Sri J. Sreenivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the document in question is sought to be marked for establishing the possession of the defendant/petitioner herein over the suit schedule property. It is his contention that there was a partition effected amongst the family members by way of a registered partition deed dated 18.12.1957 by which the entire joint family properties, including the suit schedule property, have been partitioned amongst the various sharers and subsequent thereto an arrangement in respect of the suit schedule property has been worked out to safeguard the suit schedule property and also to avoid disputes in future in relation to the partition effected earlier. Therefore, contends, learned counsel for the petitioner that the present document dated 08.08.1962 is sought to be marked for the purpose of establishing possession of the defendant over the suit schedule property, that being a collateral purpose the document is admissible in evidence.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents Sri P. Durga Prasad would contend that the document talks of shares of each individual and hence it is liable to be registered. Since the present document having not been registered, it is not liable to be admitted in evidence.

6. For determination of the question of admissibility of a document, the recitals contained therein are not only vital but they are decisive. Hence, at the time of considering the question of admissibility of a document, it is the recitals contained in that document that would govern the entire issue. Thus, the admissibility of a document is entirely dependent upon the contents of the recitals contained in that document but not on the basis of the pleadings set up by the party who seeks to introduce the document in question. (See: Omprakash v. Laxminarayana and others (2014 (1) ALD 83 (SC)).

7. If a document is liable to be compulsorily registered in terms of and in accordance with the Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, Section49 of the said Act has provided for the effect of non-registration of document required to be compulsorily registered. Section 49 reads thus:

"S. 49.--Effect of non-registration of documents required to be registered.-

No document required by section 17 or by any provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), to be registered shall -

(a) affect any immovable property comprised therein, or

(b) confer any power to adopt, or

(c) be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power, unless it has been registered:

Provided that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by t