ORDER :

B.S.Bhanumathi, J.

The question fell for consideration by this Court is about admissibility, in evidence, of unregistered and unstamped document styled as a ‘hand letter’ dated 31.07.1983 by which first defendant allegedly wrote to the plaintiff agreeing to give to the plaintiff or person nominated by the plaintiff half of the land of Ac.1.17 cents irrespective of more or less in measurement, in R.S.No.193/1, 2 fell to his share in registered partition, through registration without receiving any consideration and executing a document whenever the plaintiff wishes. In essence, by this letter, allegedly defendant No.1 agreed to give half of his landed property out of Ac.1.17 cents to the plaintiff or his nominee by executing a registered document, without receiving any consideration, whenever the plaintiff wishes.

2. This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed aggrieved of the order, dated 28.10.2017, passed in O.S.No.104 of 2011 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid.

3. Heard Smt. Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants and Sri M.R.K.Chakravarthy, learned counsel the respondent/plaintiff.

4. The facts that lead to filing of this revision by the revision petitioners/defendants is that on an objection raised by them with regard to marking of the document, that is, hand letter dated 31.07.1983, the trial Court, by the impugned order, held that this document is only hand-letter addressed by D1 by declaring his intention and no right or title is transferred through this document and is neither agreement nor settlement gift deed as pleaded by the defendants, and therefore, it does not require any stamp duty or registration. It is further held that the decision in Madala Jyothi and another v. Karanam Tirupalaiah and others 2015(5) ALD 587 is not applicable to the document.

5. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, a document agreeing to execute a registered settlement deed is also a ‘settlement deed’ as it is not just an out and out document of settlement, but an agreement to execute such a document in future also falls within the definition of ‘deed of settlement’ as can be seen from Section 2(24) of the Indian STAMP ACT , 1899 Section 17(1) of the REGISTRATION ACT , 1908 or Section 25(1) of the Indian CONTRACT ACT and thereby, it requires registration and stamp duty as per provisions of the Indian STAMP ACT , 1899 or else it cannot be received in evidence (i) for want of registration by virtue of prohibition in Section 49 of the REGISTRATION ACT , 1908, except for purposes permitted therein and (ii) for want of stamp duty by virtue of Section 35 of the STAMP ACT , 1899, unless necessary stamp duty with penalty is paid as permitted in the proviso therein.

6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners placed reliance on Madala Jyothi and Ors. vs. Karanam Tirupalaiah and Ors 2015 (5) ALD 587, wherein it was held that even if a document is construed as agreement for execution of registered settlement deed/gift deed, it requires registration under Section 25(1) of the Indian CONTRACT ACT .

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that no transfer of title is affected under the impugned document and unless such transfer of title in-praesenti is affected, the same cannot be treated as a deed of settlement, and therefore, the revision petitioners have no case. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the following decisions:

(i) T.T Gnanamurugan and Anr v. Inspector General of Registration, Chennai and Another , AIR 2009 MADRAS 202

(ii) Zaheda Begum and Another v. Lal Ahmed Khan and others AIR 2010 ANDHR