SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(AP) 133

P.NAVEEN RAO
Moduraboina Deepika – Appellant
Versus
Kuna Sujatha Devi – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : J. Venkateshwar Reddy.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner Sri. J. Venkateswara Reddy and learned counsel for second respondent Sri. M. Rama Krishna.

2. Petitioner (plaintiff) instituted O.S. No. 924 of 2012 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge at Warangal praying to grant declaration of title and delivery of possession. At the stage of defendants' evidence, defendants sought to mark document dated 17.10.1985 (Ex. B9) and document dated 7.12.1992 (no document number is shown) which is a map disclosing share of the property. Plaintiff raised objection on admissibility of those two documents. It was contended that said documents are not properly stamped and cannot be admitted in evidence even for collateral purpose as per Section 49 of the Registration Act.

3. On the contrary, the defendants contended that document dated 17.10.1985 is only an agreement executed on the same day of registered sale deed indicating respective shares in the property purchased by them and that it need not compulsorily be registered. It was further contended that document dated 7.12.1992 is only a map disclosing share of the property.

4. The Court below over ruled the objection of petitioner against both documen



























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top