ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiffs aggrieved by the orders, dated 20.11.2018, of the learned IV Additional District Judge, Guntur, dismissing the application in I.A.No.959 of 2018 in O.S.No.29 of 2011 filed under Order XIII Rule 6 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (`the Code’) requesting to demark and de-exhibit B2, and B3, unregistered Hiba Namas, dated 08.11.1971 and 11.12.1992.

2. Heard Sri Pilla Ravi, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners/plaintiffs. In spite of service of notice, none appeared for the respondents/defendants.

3. The facts necessary for consideration, in brief, are as follows:-

Plaintiffs 1 to 5 are the sons and plaintiffs 6, 7 and defendants 1 & 3 are the daughters of late Abdul Jabbar and Jainabee. Defendant No.2 is the husband of 1st defendant. The suit schedule properties are the self acquired properties of Abdul Jabbar, who died intestate on 09.10.1973, leaving behind him his wife, Jainabee and children, plaintiffs 1 to 7 and defendants 1 & 3 as his only legal heirs. Jainabee also died intestate, on 29.03.1993, leaving behind her plaintiffs 1 to 7 and defendants 1 & 3 as her only legal heirs.

(b) The plaintiffs filed the suit for partition of the suit schedule properties in the year 2011. The defendants filed their written statement. Basing on the pleadings, issues were framed. The defendants specifically pleaded in their written statement that under the guise of power of attorney dated 15.01.1980, the 2nd defendant disposed of all the items by virtue of powers conferred upon him under the general power of attorney and the 2nd defendant executed possessory sale agreement in favour of 1st defendant, Hafeejunnissa Begum, on 12.05.1989 by receiving total valid sale consideration of Rs.30,000/- from her and on the same day, delivered possession. Thus, it is clear that the defendants are relying upon possessory sale agreement only. The suit was filed in the year 2011 after giving notices to the defendants on 19.09.2010. The 4th plaintiff was examined as PW1 and the 7th plaintiff was examined as PW2 and the 1st defendant was examined as DW1. There is no whisper by the defendants about the alleged unregistered Hiba Namas dated 08.11.1971 and 11.1.1992. Those documents were neither filed in the chief affidavit of DW1, nor were they confronted with those documents in the cross-examination of PWs 1 and 2. Thus, it is clear that the said Hiba Namas were brought into existence very recently for the purpose of creating a new plea and with a view to drag on the matter. The defendants are trying to introduce new plea by introducing two unregistered Hiba Namas without getting the written statement amended. Hence, the two alleged unregistered Hiba Namas dated 08.11.1971 and 11.12.1992 cannot be marked in a routine manner. There is an abnormal delay of seven (7) years in filing those documents. Further, those documents are compulsorily registerable documents under Sections 17 and 35 of the Stamps and Registration Act. Hence, they cannot be marked for want of registration and cannot be looked into for any purpose. DW 5 is not a party to those documents, and therefore, the petition filed by DW1 to receive those documents is against the principles of law.

4. The 2nd respondent filed counter with the following averments:

(i) The validity of the documents is to be decided only during the course of trial and the instant petition is premature;

(ii) The petition is filed to drag on the matter;

(iii) The subject documents, i.e., Hibanamas do not come under the purview of Section 17 of the Stamp Duty and Registration Act.

(iv) The plea of forgery was taken to cast a cloud upon the documents and the same cannot be decided by way application of the present nature;

(v) No loss or prejudice is caused to the opposite party if the documents are marked;

(vi) There are no bona fides in filing the present petition;

(vii) Other provisions of law relied on are not relevant.

5.