Objections to the admissibility of documents must be raised before admission; once admitted, they cannot be contested based on insufficient stamping.

ORDER:

The Petitioner herein is the Plaintiff in the suit and Respondent herein is the Defendant in the suit. The instant Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the Petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 10.07.2024 in I.A.No.555 of 2023 in O.S.No.287 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the I Additional District & Sessions Judge at Ongole, wherein the petition filed under Order XVIII Rule 3 of CPC praying the Court to demark the Ex.B2/un-registered agreement of sale dated 15.11.2012 is dismissed.

2. The case of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner filed O.S.No.287 of 2014 against the Respondent herein for declaration of title over suit schedule property and for the relief of consequential delivery of suit schedule property and for permanent injunction. The Respondent herein also filed a suit in O.S.No.86/2016 against the Petitioner. The Respondent got filed an agreement of sale, said to have been executed by the elder brother of the Petitioner by name Bolla Lakshmi Kanth and another and the said sale agreements were marked as Ex.B1 and B2. In Ex.B2 the respondent has mentioned that got possession over the suit schedule property and constructed an RCC building therein. Under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, (for short “Act”) the Ex.B2 shall be impounded by the respondent either in the Court or get impounded by the District Registrar, but the respondent did not take any such steps.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the suit filed for declaration of title coupled with recovery of possession and also for permanent injunction. Whereas the Court below contrary to the object of Section 35 of the Act marked the Ex.B2-agreement of sale which is an unregistered and insufficient stamped document. In view of non-observation of Section 35 of the Act, Ex.B2 is liable to be demarked by the Court. He further submits that even though the document has been marked as exhibit, the aggrieved party is not precluded from raising its admissibility even at later stage or even in appeal or revision if the matter of objection is relates to substantive law, much less regarding the Registration of Stamp Act. In view of the said settled proposition the Petitioner filed present petition seeking to demark Ex.B2 which is an unregistered and insufficient stamped document, for which the Petitioner relied upon the judgment dated 03.07.2023 of this Court in C.R.P.No.2750/2022 (Mohammed Khaleel Ahmed and another vs. Shaik Noorjahan Begum). He also relied upon the ratio held by Hon’ble Apex Court in G.M Shahul Hameed vs. Jayanth H. Hegde, 2024 AIR Supreme Court 3339 = 2024(4) MLJ 382 dated 09.07.2024.

4. He further submits that it is the primary obligation of the Court below since the Ex.B2 is an unregistered and insufficient stamped document, requires compliance of statutory requirements as per Section 35 of the Act as well as Section 17 of Registration Act, since the document is compulsory registerable document before admitting or before marking the document. But the Court below erroneously marked the document on the ground that there was no objection on the part of the Petitioner/Plaintiff therein at this time of marking document. The said action of the Court below is contrary to the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as stated supra.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondent denied the contention of the Petitioner and submits that the Ex.B2 is only an endorsing/ratification of the earlier agreement of sale i.e., 03.03.2010 which was entered by the brother of the Petitioner. The recitals of the Ex.B2 confirms the possession of the Respondent herein which was already delivered by his brother pursuant to the agreement of sale dated 03.03.2010. Therefore, the Ex.B2 is only a document of corrigendum or confirming the recitals already executed between the brother of the Petitioner and Respondent dated 03.03.2010.

6. The Petitioner herein neither delivered any possession nor alienated indepe