A. Rajasekhar Reddy, J.

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the orders passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Gudur in O.S. No. 230 of 2010 dated 09.02.2012 wherein the Court below declared the suit settlement agreement dated 10.06.1997 as inadmissible in evidence for want of Stamp Duty and Registration.

2. The case of revision petitioners is that the first respondent, who is the owner of the suit property and father of first petitioner executed an agreement for settlement dated 10.06.1997 in favour of the first petitioner and delivered possession of the suit property and further agreed to execute registered settlement deed as and when requested by the first petitioner. The first respondent executed a settlement deed dated 04.06.2010 in favour of the 2nd respondent without having any manner of right. Aggrieved by the same, revision petitioners filed O.S. No. 230 of 2010 for specific performance of agreement dated 10.06.1997.

3. The respondents filed written statement denying the execution of the settlement deed dated 10.06.1997 in favour of the 1st petitioner and further averred that the first respondent executed settlement deed dated 04.06.2010 in favour of the 2nd respondent. During the course of arguments in I.A. No. 517 of 2010 which was filed for temporary injunction in the above suit, learned counsel for the respondents raised objections from marking the suit document for want of registration and stamp duty.

4. The Court below upheld the objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents and held that the settlement document dated 10.06.1997 is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration and stamp duty. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed.

5. Sri K.S. Gopala Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that in a suit for specific performance unregistered document is admissible in evidence by virtue of proviso to Section 49(c) of the Registration Act, 1908. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment reported in S. Kaladevi v. V.R. Somasundaram and others, AIR 2010 Supreme Court 1654. He further submits that the suit for specific performance can be maintained under Section 15(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, but the Court below erroneously declared the settlement agreement dated 10.06.1997 as inadmissible in evidence for want of registration and stamp duty.

6. On the other hand, Sri Ch. C. Krishna Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the document dated 10.06.1997 is a gift settlement deed, hence the same requires stamp duty and it should be registered as per Section 17(1) of the Registration Act, 1908. He also submits that as per Section 25(1) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 any agreement without consideration is void unless it is in writing and registered. He contends that the subject document is neither properly stamped nor is registered. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment reported in Gandevalla Jayaram Reddy v. Mokkala Padmavathamma and others, 2001 (5) ALT 130 (F.B.). He further contends that the Court below by relying on the judgments of the Apex Court as well as this Court, came to the conclusion that the said judgments are not applicable to the facts of the present case.

7. The Court below while dealing with the suit settlement document dated 10.06.1997 came to the conclusion that the recitals of the said document show that first defendant has executed the settlement deed in favour of the 1st petitioner out of love and affection in respect of the suit property and he has also delivered possession of the same to the first petitioner and further recited that the 1st plaintiff shall enjoy the property with absolute rights and further recited to execute registered document as and when requested by the 1st petitioner. These recitals of the document dated 10.06.1997 clearly show that the suit property was settled and possession was delivered to the 1st petitioner with absolute rights. Since absol