JUDGMENT :

This revision petition is directed against the order of the Court of the learned V Additional District Judge-cum-Family Court, Titupati, in I.A.No.201 of 2018 in O.S.No.181 of 2013.

2. The petitioner, as plaintiff, filed the suit against respondent basing on three deeds of mortgage for different amounts, in all for Rs.48,40,000/-. ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties in the plaint are covered by registered mortgage deeds dated 14.10.2010 and 13.04.2011 respectively. Whereas, ‘C’ schedule property shown in the plaint, is alleged to have been covered by an unregistered mortgage deed.

3. It is stated that the respondent, as defendant, admitted all these transactions in the written statement and had set up a plea of discharge.

4. In the course of trial when the petitioner wanted to exhibit the unregistered mortgage deed dated 27.09.2011, an objection was taken by the trial Court that it is not admissible for want of registration, though required stamp duty and penalty was paid thereon. According to the petitioner, on the directions of the Court below itself such exercise was undertaken.

5. The above petition was filed by the petitioner to permit her to exhibit this unregistered mortgage deed at the trial on her behalf referring to her case set out in the plaint and also the fact that the respondent did not dispute the nature of this transaction as well as its execution. It is the contention of the petitioner that she is enforcing the personal covenant in the unregistered mortgage deed whereby the respondent had agreed to repay the amount due under the above mortgage and thus, it is her case that she is relying on the original cause of action relating to exchange of loan consideration between her and the respondent.

6. However, considering the objection raised on behalf of the respondents that the above document is an unregistered document, the trial Judge observed in the order impugned, that the above document since requires registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act, cannot be marked. Thus observing, the petition filed for such purpose by the petitioner was dismissed.

7. Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner referring to all the above circumstances, contended that despite the fact that the trial Court observed that the ruling relied on by the petitioner of the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in C.R.P.No.5972 of 2002 dated 23.01.2004 is ‘true and binding’, did not follow the principle explained therein and thus, it is contended that in the facts and circumstances, when the petitioner is only enforcing the personal covenant in the document sought to be exhibited, dismissal of the petition was uncalled for. Even otherwise, it is contended that in the circumstances when the document is sought to be used for collateral purpose, the trial Court could not have refused to introduce it in evidence. Thus contending, it is sought to allow the revision petition.

8. In spite of service of notice, none appeared for the respondent in this revision petition.

9. Now, the point for determination is – whether the order under revision refusing to permit exhibiting of unregistered mortgage deed dated 27.09.2011, is proper?

10. The petitioner specifically stated in her affidavit filed in the trial Court in I.A.No.201 of 2018 that she was enforcing the personal covenant in the unregistered mortgage deed in respect of ‘C’ schedule property whereby the respondent had agreed to repay the amount whenever they demand. However, the learned trial Judge considered the above recital as the main purpose and object of the document in question and not being an instance of collateral purpose. The petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court the observations of erstwhile composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Umde Bhojram v. Wadla Gangadhar (2004 (2) ALT 367), in this context and it was the ruling cited by the petitioner before the trial Court. It is further contended for the petitioner that the