APHC010005022025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3332]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 78/2025 Between:

1. Z R MOULI, DIED BY LRS. Z.SESHAMMA, W/O. Z.R.MOULI, AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS.

2. Z.JAYACHANDRA, , S/O. Z.R.MOULI AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.

3. Z.NAGARJUNA RAO,, S/O. Z.R.MOULI, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.

4. Z.RAKESH, , S/O. Z.R.MOULI, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS. ALL ARE HINDUS, THE PETITIONERS 1 TO 4 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR POWER ATTORNEY HOLDER K.INDIRA, D/O. (LATE) Z.R.MOULI, W/O. K.P.KUMAR R/O. D.NO. 65-86, FORT, KURNOOL CITY.

5. K.INDIRA,, D/O. LATE Z.R.MOULI, W/O. K.P.KUMAR, R/O. D.NO. 65-

86, FORT, KURNOOL CITY.

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

1. CHILAKALA SIVA REDDY, S/o. Late Nageswara Reddy, Aged about

77 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o. Atmakur Town AND Mandal, Kurnool District.

...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased tobeg to present this memorandum of Civil Revision Petition to this Hon'ble Court being aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 29.11.2024 passed in I.A.No.178 of 2024 in O.S.No.15 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur under Article 227 of Constitution of India IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. C PRAKASH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent:

1. CH MARKONDAIAH ORDER This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the legality and correctness of the order dated 29.11.2024 passed in I.A.No.178 of 2024 in O.S.No.15 of 2018 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur.

2. The Revision petitioners are the defendants whereas the respondent is the respondent/plaintiff in I.A.No.178 of 2024 in O.S.No.15 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur.

3. The facts that led to filing of the Civil Revision petition, in brief, are that in the suit filed by the respondent vide O.S.No.15 of 2018 for declaration that he is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property, the petitioner no.5 herein, who is defendant no.5, filed the petition vide I.A.No.178 of 2024 under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act and Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure to send the original Decree Transfer Khararunama dated 28.12.1999 executed by respondent/plaintiff in favour of Ganji Siva Rama Lingaiah and three others, contending that marking of the said document is necessary for proving Exs.B2 to B5. The respondent/plaintiff resisted the claim made by the petitioner no.5/defendant no.5 that the petition is silent for what collateral purpose the document is sought to be marked. The learned trial Judge, upon considering the pleadings and submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the petition, holding that the unregistered decree transfer deed does not carry any legal sanctity and so marking the document for any collateral purpose does not arise and hence there is no need to send the document for collection of stamp duty and penalty.

4. The order dismissing the said petition has been assailed in this Civil Revision Petition.

5. Heard Sri C.Prakash Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri Ch.Markondaiah, learned counsel for respondent.

6. Sri C.Prakash Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, while reiterating the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the petition covered under the impugned orders and the grounds of revision petition would contend that impounding the subject document for the purpose of marking the same for collateral purpose is very much essential to substantiate that the suit is not maintainable, since the decree passed in O.S.No.23 of 1987, which was transferred under the subject document, became time barred and the resp