Judicial determination is essential for document admissibility; failure to do so renders the prior admissions unsound.

ORDER :

1. Heard Mrs. P. Sarada, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. This revision is filed by defendant No.3 challenging the docket order dated 11.07.2025 in O.S. No.1493 of 2012 passed by learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal.

3. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein are the plaintiffs in O.S. No.1493 of 2012, while respondent Nos.4 and 5 and the petitioner herein are the defendants in the said suit.

4. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein have filed the aforesaid suit for perpetual injunction against the petitioner herein and respondent Nos.4 and 5 in respect of the agricultural land to an extent of Acs.2.00 guntas in Survey No.141, situated at Shayampet Haveli Village, Geesugonda Mandal, Warangal District. According to them, they being own sisters have jointly purchased the said property under a registered sale deed bearing document No.2854 of 2008, dated 24.05.2008 from Udayaraju Manikya Rao @ Vaddiraju Manikya Rao. Respondent No.4 is their brother. Except the said relationship, he has no right, title or interest over the subject property. Respondent No.5 is yes-man of respondent No.4. When respondent Nos.4 and 5 tried to interfere with the possession of respondent Nos.1 to 3, they filed the aforesaid suit seeking the relief of perpetual injunction.

5. During pendency of the said suit, the petitioner herein was added as defendant No.3 in the said suit vide order dated 15.12.2014 in I.A. No.68 of 2014. According to the petitioner herein, respondent Nos.1 to 3 are not the owners of the subject property and that they never in possession of the suit schedule property. It is the case of the petitioner that the father of respondent Nos.1 to 4 purchased the land to an extent of Acs.2.00 guntas in Survey Nos.103, 104 (Old), 141 (New) on 10.01.1974 from Mr. Udayaraju Manikya Rao through a simple sale deed. Later, he sold the same extent of land along with another Ac.0.20 guntas to Mrs. Gali Mariyamma, the mother of the petitioner herein under an agreement of sale dated 09.05.2008 for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,75,000/- and delivered the possession. Thus, the mother of the petitioner was in possession of the subject land and after her demise, the petitioner is in possession of the subject property.

6. While so, when the aforesaid case was coming up for the evidence of defendant No.3, defendant No.3 executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of his lease holder, Mr. Gali Pawan Kumar. Accordingly, on 03.07.2025 Gali Pawan Kumar filed his affidavit in-lieu of chief examination as DW.3. In the said chief- examination, it is mentioned that DW.3 also executed simple lease deed (Kaulunama) on 22.05.2013 in favour of defendant No.3. The said lease deed was also filed and marked as Ex.B12, while the said General Power of Attorney bearing document No.BK-IV 1/2023, dated 07.02.2023 executed by the petitioner herein in favour of DW.3 as Ex.B13. Accordingly, on 11.07.2025, the said lease deed was marked as Ex.B12, on which day, the trial Court made the following docket order:

“DW.3 called present. Defendant counsel called present. Plaintiff counsel called present. DW3 present. Ex.B12 marked. At the time of marking of documents of DW3 learned counsel for plaintiff has taken objection for marking of Ex.B12 unregistered lease deed on the ground that the said lease deed ought to have been registered, hence not admissible in evidence. On the other hand the learned counsel for defendant submitted that it is not necessary to register the said lease deed.

I have perused the lease deed dt.22.05.2013. The lease deed is executed for more than 11 months and as such it is a document which needs to be compulsorily registered. Hence in order to be admissibl