IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that trial courts must diligently assess the admissibility of documents, particularly regarding stamping and registration, and have the authority to impound insufficiently stamped documents.

ORDER :

G.Narendar, J.

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners.

2. The instant Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 24.04.2024, rendered on the application i.e. I.A.No.675 of 2016 in O.S.No.273 of 2015, on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tenali, whereunder the application, preferred under Order XIII Rule 3 and Section 151 of CPC praying to demark Ex.A.1, was rejected.

3. The document Ex.A.1 is alleged to be an unregistered gift deed, dated 21.04.2013. The marking of the document is contested on the ground that it is not sufficiently stamped and also bad for want of registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908.

4. Order XIII Rule 3 reads as under:

“3. Rejection of irrelevant or inadmissible documents.- The Court may at any stage of the suit reject any document which it considers irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible, recording the grounds of such rejection.”

5. The trial Court has placed reliance on the ruling rendered in the case of Sirikonda Madhava Rao v. N.Hemalatha, 2022 Live Law (SC) 970 and the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Korukonda Chalapathi Rao v. Korukonda Annapurna Sampath, Judgment of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.6141 of 2021, dated 01.10.2021. and also the ruling of the Telangana High Court rendered in the case of Smt. Kaladevi v. Y. Anithi Reddy, Judgment of the Telangana High Court, dated 06.08.2019..

6. The appreciation of law on the point by the trial Court does not in any manner detract from the right of the revision petitioners to canvas the same in an appeal, in the event the document is appreciated and held against the petitioners. Mere marking of the document would not dilute the rigors of either Section 17 or Section 49 of the Registration Act. That apart, the High Court of Karnataka in similar circumstances while dealing with the sufficiency of stamps in respect of marked document has been pleased to hold in the case of Sri R.Mahesh v. Sri B.P. Venugopal, ILR 2018 KAR 3029 as under:

“13. On perusal of the application, it is seen that the case canvassed is not against the admission of the documents, but that they are insufficiently stamped. If that being the case, a duty was cast on the Court below to render a declaration as to whether the document is chargable to duty and if so, whether is it sufficiently stamped. This duty is cast by the provisions of Section 58 of the Act and sub-Section (2) of Section 58 provides for impounding. The scope for impounding is for the limited purpose of forwarding it to the Deputy Commissioner/Competent authority who intum shall institute prosecution as per sub-Section (4) of Section 58 of the Act. Hence, from a reading of the provisions of Section 58 of Act, it is apparent that the Trial Court is obligated and a duty cast upon it to render a finding as to whether it is a compulsorily registrable document and if so whether it is sufficiently stamped. Hence, in the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order calls for interference. In this regard, this Court places reliance on the observations made by this Court in the ruling in the case of Smt. Savithramma. R.C. v. Vijaya Bank [2015 (4) AKR 45.] wherein this Court in similar circumstances was pleased to hold as under:

“4. Interpreting this provision, this Court, in the case of Lakshminarayanachar v. Narayan, held as under:

“11. Now, the document is described in S. 33 as a document which is produced before the authority or comes before the authority in the performance of its functions. The principal function with reference to which production or reception of documents is mentioned in S.33, so far as Courts are concerned, is the function appertaining to the exercise of the authority of taking evidence. Production before a Court is a voluntary act, an act accompanied by the mental element of a desire to depend upon it as a piece of evidence in the litigation. Where the production of document is compelled by the Court, such