1) In this revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner/defendant challenges the order dated 26.06.2015 in I.A.No.125 of 2015 in O.S.No.43 of 2014 passed by Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sompeta whereby and whereunder the learned Judge dismissed the petition filed under Section 35 of Indian Stamp Act requesting the Court to impound the petition mentioned unregistered mortgage deed dated 31.03.2003.

2) Factual matrix of the case is thus:

a) The respondent/plaintiff filed O.S.No.43 of 2014 against the petitioner/defendant seeking perpetual injunction in respect of plaint schedule vacant site situated in Gandhipeta Baruva village, Sompeta Mandal of Srikakulam District pleading that originally plaint schedule property was a thatched house belonging to his paternal-grand-father—Bollobho Narayana Rono and after him it devolved on his only son—Tarini Rono and later the said property was devolved on his four sons i.e. plaintiff and his three brothers and as the brothers of the plaintiff are settled in different places for their livelihood, plaintiff has been managing the plaint schedule property and during the course of time the thatched house collapsed and plaint schedule property remained as vacant site. It is further pleaded that plaintiff and his brothers are the absolute owners and defendant has nothing to do with the plaint schedule property. However, the defendant started proclaiming that he will trespass into plaint schedule property illegally.

Hence the suit for injunction.

b) Defendant filed written statement denying all the material averments in the plaint contending that the plaint schedule thatched house is the ancestral property of one Sakula Madhava Rao and after his death it devolved on his only son—Joga Rao and the said Joga Rao wanted to migrate to Calcutta to eke-out his livelihood and for this purpose he needed money and so he mortgaged the plaint schedule property which was originally a thatched house to plaintiff for Rs.11,000/- under an unregistered mortgage deed dated 31.03.2003 and delivered possession of the said house to defendant and since then defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. His further contention is that subsequently the thatched house was collapsed in the year 2009 and suit property became vacant site and it was in possession of the defendant. He denied the ownership and possession of plaintiff in respect of pliant schedule property.

c) While so, during trial the defendant filed a petition I.A.No.125 of 2015 under Section 35 of Indian Stamp Act requesting the trial Court to impound the mortgage deed dated 31.03.2003. The trial Court however dismissed the said petition on the main ground that boundaries of plaint schedule property and mortgaged property are different from each other and so, the property covered by mortgage deed dated 31.03.2003 has nothing to do with the plaint schedule property.

Hence the instant CRP.

3) The parties in the CRP are referred as they stood before the trial Court.

4) Heard arguments of Sri K.Manik Prabhu, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri B. Ramesh, learned counsel for respondent.

5) Challenging the impugned order, learned counsel for petitioner/defendant argued that the trial Court grossly erred in rejecting the petition on the ground that boundaries of both the properties are different. He argued that Northern boundary of both the properties which is a permanent boundary is the same. Similarly, Southern boundary which is a Zinc sheet roofed house of Pondara people is also same for both the properties and difference, if any, is only in respect of Eastern and Western boundaries, which the defendant will explain when the mortgage deed is tendered in evidence and therefore, the trial Court was not justified in rejecting the document at the threshold without impounding the same. He thus prayed to allow the CRP.

6) Per contra, learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff while supporting the impugned order vehemently