1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against order, dated 05.07.2013, in EA.No.48 of 2013 in O.S.No.25 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the II Additional District Judge, Krishna at Vijayawada.

2. EA.No.48 of 2013 is filed under Order VII Rule 14 of CPC by the petitioner in the lower Court (by the claim petitioner in the claim petition) to receive the documents, which are filed along with the said application. The respondent filed a counter stating that the documents cannot be received in evidence. His particular objection was about document No.4, which is an agreement of sale dated 06.10.1974. The objection raised in the counter is that the document cannot be received as evidence as it is not validly stamped and is also not registered as required under law. The lower Court, after hearing the application, held that the objections raised are not sustainable in law and particularly, as the application is filed to condone the delay in receiving the documents. The application was allowed; the delay was condoned and the documents were directed to be received subject to proof and relevancy. It is this order that is questioned in this appeal.

3. This Court has heard Sri V. Narasimha Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Despite opportunities, the respondents did not appear and argue.

4. The short and simple question that involved is, whether document No.4 can be received in evidence or not. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that the document cannot be received in evidence as it is neither properly stamped nor registered. Learned counsel for the petitioner filed additional papers on 13.04.2018 in which a copy of the agreement of sale dated 08.10.1974 (document No.4) and the gift deed executed subsequent thereto were filed. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that document No.4, which is an agreement of sale, is a document of title and that therefore, it requires registration and stamp duty. Learned counsel relies upon the recitals in the gift deed dated 13.10.2005 (document No.4695/2005), wherein the vendor states that she has acquired title to the property by the document dated 08.10.1974. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel is that as the parties treated the agreement dated 08.10.1974 as a sale deed transferring title to the property, it cannot be received in evidence at all. Learned counsel relied upon the following case laws :

1. Rachakonda Ramakoteswara Rao and others v. Manohar Fuel Centre, Nereducherla, Khammam, 2003 (2) ALD 638.

2. Pariti Suryakanthamma and another v. Saripalli Srinivasa Rao and another, 2010 (2) ALT 648.

3. Avinash Kumar Chauhan v. Vijay Krishna Mishra, 2009 (2) SCC 532.

4. Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Ltd., v. State of Haryana and another, 2012 (1) SCC 656 and

5. Omprakash v. Laxminarayan and others, 2014 (1) SCC 618.

5. Relying on these judgments, learned counsel vehemently argued that the agreement of sale dated 08.10.1974 cannot be received in evidence as it neither stamped nor registered. He relies upon the recitals of the gift deed for which this document dated 08.10.1974 is a link document. The vendor/donor states that she has acquired title through this document. Therefore, learned counsels argument is that it is to be treated as a document of title and cannot be received in evidence.

6. The two applicable sections/provisions of law, which fall for consideration in this revision are Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short the Stamp Act) and Section 49 (c) proviso of the Registration Act, 1908.

7. Section 35 of the Stamp Act is to the following effect :

35 - Instruments not duly stamped inadmissible in evidence, etc. No instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, or shall be acted upon, registered or authenticated by any such person or by any public officer, unless such instrument is duly stamped :

Provide