ORDER:

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/defendant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the docket order dated 18.09.2017 passed by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, in O.S.No.78 of 2009 wherein and whereby learned trial Judge not permitted the petitioner/defendant to mark unregistered gift settlement deed dated 14.08.1991. The respondents/plaintiffs have filed suit against the petitioner/defendant for declaration of their title to the plaint schedule immovable property and for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the petitioner/defendant from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. During the course of trial of the suit, the petitioner/defendant intended to mark unregistered gift settlement deed dated 14.08.1991 as exhibit in his evidence. For which, learned counsel representing the respondents/plaintiffs before trial Court objected for the same. Then after hearing both sides, learned trial Judge passed orders, which reads as under:-

“….Therefore, in the above case the defendant who intended the exhibit the said document, requested this Court to receive in evidence on collateral purpose but on the other hand the learned counsel for the plaintiff denied the said request by raising objection that it cannot be admitted in the evidence as it is mandatory required to be registered on verification of the recitals of the document, it clearly shows transfer of rights of the schedule property in favour of the defendant and also shows extinguishment of the rights executants. Therefore, by way of such transfer, the rights are created in favour of the defendant in whose favour the said document is executed. It is also styled as gift settlement deed and further the said property is transferred by way of gift settlement deed. Therefore, under the above facts and circumstances such document is compulsorily registerable in terms of Section 123 of T.P. Act and Section 17(1) b of the Registration Act and merely because it is stamped as per the validation by the District Registrar, it cannot be permitted to be admitted in the evidence unless it is registered. Therefore, under the above facts and circumstances the said document being a gift settlement deed it is compulsorily required to be registered.

Hence, the plea of the defendant to admit the said document in evidence is rejected for want of registration.”

2. Aggrieved by the orders passed by learned trial Judge, the petitioner/defendant filed present civil revision petition stating that orders passed by trial Court are erroneous, contrary to law and weight of evidence. He submits that deciding the validity of the document by the trial Court is pre-matured, which is contrary to well established law. It is the contention of the revision petitioner that document though it is not registered when it is impounded can be received for collateral purpose. He prays to allow this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that though document dated 14.08.1991 styled as settlement deed creating rights in the immovable property in favour of the petitioner/defendant, which requires registration but as stamp duty and penalty is paid on the document before District Registrar, Eluru, which can be received in evidence for collateral purpose, which failed to consider by learned trial Judge. It is the contention of learned counsel for the revision petitioner that refusing to mark the document by the trial Court is erroneous and findings of the trial Court with regard to nature of the document and its purpose without adducing evidence on both sides is pre-matured one, which is liable to be set aside. He relied on following precedent law:-

1) Yellapu Uma Maheswari and another … Appellants Vs. Buddha Jagadheeswararao and others … Respondents 2015 (16) SCC 787 wherein it is held at para Nos.17 and 18, which reads as under:-

“17. It is well settled that the nomenclature given to