IMPORTANT POINT
The law is settled that an unregistered document which requires registration is admissible in evidence under Section 49 of the Registration Act,1908,for collateral purpose whereas an unstamped or insufficiently stamped document cannot be admitted into evidence for any purpose including for collateral purpose in the face of bar under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act,1899.

C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.—The short issue that arises for consideration in this civil revision petition is whether the decision of the learned Junior Civil Judge Rayadurg, Anantapur district, overruling the petitioner’s objection for marking for unregistered partition deed dated 20.2.1994 suffers from any illegality.

2. The petitioner filed OS No. 43 of 2008 against the respondents for perpetual injunction. During the course of chief examination of DW1, he sought to mark an unregistered partition deed dated 20.2.1994. The petitioner raised an objection for marking the said document on the ground that the same is unregistered and insufficiently stamped partition deed, which cannot be admitted in evidence unless it is registered on proper stamp duty. The Court below had admitted the document into evidence as Ex. B1.

3. The law is settled that an unregistered document which requires registration is admissible in evidence under Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, for collateral purpose (see Chinnappareddigari Pedda Muthyalareddy v. Chinnappareddigari Venkatareddy and others, AIR 1969 AP 242 and Roshan Singh v. Zile Singh, AIR 1988 SC 881 whereas an unstamped or insufficiently stamped document cannot be admitted into evidence for any purpose including for collateral purpose in the face of bar under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 [see Sanjeeva Reddi v. Johanputra Reddi, AIR 1972 AP 373 and Rachakonda Ramakoteswara Rao v. Manohar Fuel Centre Nereducherla, Khamnam, 2002 (2) An. WR 725 (AP).

4. In the instant case, the Court below has proceeded on the premise that the document sought to be marked is an unregistered and insufficiently stamped partition deed. However, it misdirected itself in thinking that such a document can be marked in evidence for collateral purpose by placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in Gunitupalli Venkata Ramaiah v. Guntupalli Purnachandra Rao, 2010(6) ALT 511.

5. From a perusal of the judgment in Guntupalli Venknta Ramaiah (supra), it is evident that the case before this Court arose in a suit for partition, wherein this Court has held that the two documents which were in dispute can be looked into for a collateral purpose inspite of non-registration of the documents, if the stamp. duty and penalty is paid.

6. Without proper comprehension of the said judgment, the Court below has marked the document in evidence even without ordering payment of proper stamp duty. In this view of the matter, the order of the Court below is reversed. The respondents are given liberty to pay proper stamp duty and penalty and resubmit the same in evidence thereafter. On payment of such stamp duty and penalty, the Court below shall mark the same into evidence.

7. Subject to the above directions, the civil revision petition is allowed. No costs.

8. As a sequel to the disposal of the civil revision petition, CRP MPNo.6476 of 2011 is dismissed.

*******