ORDER :

M. SEETHARAMA MURTI, J.

1. This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed assailing the order, dated 7.2.2019, of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, passed in IA No. 1575 of 2018 in OS No. 157 of 2014.

2. I have heard the submissions of Sri D. Yathindra Dev, learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioners-defendants 1, 10 to 16 and of Sri Sreenivasa Rao Velivela, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3-plaintiffs. I have perused the material record.

3. The introductory facts, in brief, are as follows:

In a suit for partition, the defendants 1, 9 to 16 ['the contesting defendants', for short], who are resisting the suit, filed an application under Section 38(2) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, ['Code', for short] requesting to send the original document, dated 5.4.2002, styled as 'Oppudala Patram' [acceptance deed], filed alongwith the affidavit filed in lieu of examination in chief of D.W. 2, to the District Registrar, Guntur, for deciding the stamp duty collectable on the said document and for collecting the deficit stamp duty and penalty. The said application was resisted by the plaintiffs. On merits and by the orders impugned in this revision, the Trial Court dismissed the said petition. Hence, the defendants 1, 10 to 16 filed this revision.

4. The case of the contesting defendants in support of the afore-stated request, as stated in the affidavit of the 13th defendant, in brief, is this:

The suit is filed for partition and other reliefs. The contesting defendants are resisting the suit. The suit is posted for hearing arguments. The 13th defendant got filed written arguments through his Counsel. Thereafter, on the application of the plaintiffs, the evidence was reopened. Further evidence was adduced on behalf of the plaintiffs by examining P.W. 2. Thereafter, the suit is again posted for hearing arguments. While discussing the case facts with the Counsel, it is noticed that though the 13th defendant filed, alongwith the affidavit in lieu of examination in chief of the said defendant, a gift agreement letter, dated 5.4.2002, executed by the 1st plaintiff, 12th defendant and others, the said document was not exhibited as it is not duly stamped. The 13th defendant made a representation to the Court that he is prepared to pay the deficit stamp duty and penalty on the said document. Further, a request was made on behalf of the present defendants to collect the stamp duty and penalty and receive the document in evidence and permit them to exhibit the same through the 13th defendant. Hence, the present petition is filed.

5. Per contra, the case of the plaintiffs as stated in the counter of the 2nd plaintiff, in brief, is this:

The material allegations in the affidavit of the 13th defendant, which is filed in support of the petition, are false. Under the gift deed, there is no consideration. There is no prior agreement. It is an out and out gift deed, as it created right, title and interest over immovable property; and, possession was also delivered under the very said document. The said document is a compulsorily registrable document. It is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served if the document is impounded and the stamp duty and penalty collectable on the instrument are collected. The instrument was executed by six persons, as per the recitals in the first paragraph of the instrument. Thumb impressions of executants 7 & 8 were inserted at a later point of time at the bottom of Pages 1 and 2 of the instrument. Since the document in question is not a registered document, though required under law to be registered, it cannot be received in evidence. It is a false document created for the purpose of this case. D.Ws. 1 and 2 stated in their evidence that D.W. 1 purchased item No. 2 of the plaint schedule property from the shareholders by payin