1. This Civil Revision Petition arises out of Order passed by the trial Court, holding a particular document sought to be marked by the first defendant in evidence. Heard Mr.G.Ramesh Babu, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ambati Sudhakara Rao, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.1/plaintiff, Mrs. S.V. Indira, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.2, who was the first defendant in the suit, and Mr.Avinash Desai, learned Counsel for respondent No.6, who was the fifth defendant in the suit.

2. Though respondent Nos.2, 4 and 5 have been served and respondent Nos.4 and 7 have not been served, they are unnecessary parties to this Civil Revision Petition, as the fight is only between the petitioner, who was the seventh defendant in the suit, and respondent No.2, who was the first defendant in the suit.

3. For convenience, the parties shall be hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in the Civil Revision Petition. The suit filed by the first respondent was for a declaration that she is the absolute owner of the property in question. In the course of trial, she sought to mark a document, dated 06-12-1997. The same was objected to by the petitioner on the ground that it was insufficiently stamped and unregistered and hence, it was not admissible in evidence. The trial Court overruled the objections forcing the petitioner to come up with the present Civil Revision Petition.

4. The document in question is written in Telugu language. Admittedly, the title given to the document in the vernacular language is ‘Angeekarapatram’. The words ‘Angeekarapatram’ would literally mean ‘an Instrument of Acknowledgment’. Though Mrs. S.V. Indira, learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent contended that ‘Angeekarapatram’ would mean a letter of consent, I do not think that the same is correct. The word ‘Angeekarapatram’ has got roots in Sanskrit. It means ‘Acknowledgment’. An acknowledgment may also tantamount to consent at times. But, every consent need not be an acknowledgment.

5. Having resolved the dispute with regard to the title to the document rather than the title to the property, let us now examine the contents of the document. An English translation of the document is provided by the revision petitioner in the material papers. In view of the dispute raised by the learned Counsel for the second respondent, I permitted the latter to file an independent English translation of the document. Let me go only by the translation provided by the learned Counsel for the second respondent and examine whether the document creates any right, title or interest in the first respondent. The document in entirety could be extracted for the purpose of convenience as follows:

“You have rendered service to the first pontiff of Sri Vyasasramam, Pujyasri Sree Vimalananda Giri Swamy as his disciple. Later on, you proceeded to Varanasi and graduated in Vedantacharya M.A. and have been looking after all the properties and development of Sri Paramatmananda Ashramam for the past 5 years and have been developing the devotees in relation to religious mysticism. Earlier Sri Kilaru Appaiah, son of Kilaru Krishnaiah, had on 3.6.1943 executed a deed of gift and registered the same as Doc.No.862/43, Book-I, Volume-159 at pages 471-473 in the office the Sub-Registrar, Kankipadu, Krishna District relating to Sri Vyasasramam and located on the western side of Sri Paramatmananda Ashramam. Said schedule property in an extent of Ac.0.90 cents (ninety cents) of dry land belonged to our Ashramam with absolute rights and earlier Bhavineni Rama Kotaiah, resident of Penamaluru village, had settled an extent of Ac.0.04 cents of dry land bearing R.S.No.462/2 in favour of our Ashramam by a deed of gift. As the extent of Ac.0.94 cents of dry land is located far away in another village and as we have no opportunity of developing the said land in relation to any spiritual matters and as you have been doing spiritual services to the Ashramam by residing there