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

2019 Supreme(AP) 35

D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU
V. Madhusudhan Rao – Appellant
Versus
S. Nirmala Bai – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: N. Pramod, Counsel.
For the Respondent: R. Radha Krishna Reddy, Counsel.

JUDGMENT :

1. This civil revision petition is filed questioning the order dated 4-1-2018 in I.A.No.839 of 2017 in O.S.No.241 of 2009 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mandanapalle.

2. The suit O.S.No.241 of 2009 is filed for partition of the plaint schedule property and to allot a share to the plaintiffs. In the said suit, the plaintiffs have taken a plea by way of amendment that a sale deed dated 31-1-1987 which is executed in favour of defendant No.4 is not valid. The sale deed dated 31-1-1987 is an unregistered document executed on stamp paper worth Rs.5/-. The plaintiffs filed a petition under Order 13 Rule 3 read with Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, read with Section 151 CPC., for a direction that the said document cannot be accepted in evidence as it is not registered and is not adequately stamped. Respondents filed a counter in this application I.A.No.839 of 2017 stating that they are ready to pay the stamp duty and penalty on the document. They also admit that the unregistered sale deed is admissible for a collateral purpose of proving the possession of the suit schedule property by the defendants. This application came to be allowed and the impugned or































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