2026:APHC:9536 APHC010533342025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3311]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

Tuesday, the twenty fourth day of two thousand and twenty six Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No: 2737 of 2025 Between:

Venkatalakshmi ...Petitioner and B.Sreenivasulu and another ...Respondents Counsel for the petitioner:

Ayesha Azma S Counsel for the respondents:

NIL The Court made the following:

O R D E R:

This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 02.09.2025 allowing I.A.No.537 of 2024 in I.A.No.98 of 2024 in O.S.No.38 of 2024 filed by the defendants under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short, the ‘Stamp Act’) to send the lease agreements, dated 03.07.2014 to the District Registrar, Puttaparthy, for impounding the same.

2. The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants for recovery of arrears of rent to a tune of Rs.2,64,000/- payable by the defendant No.1 and Rs.1,98,000/- payable by the defendant No.2 and future interest thereon and a direction to the defendants to vacate the suit schedule house property. The plaintiff pleaded that the defendant No.1 entered into one portion of the suit schedule property on a monthly rent of Rs.8,000/- and the defendant No.2 entered into another portion of the suit schedule property on a monthly rent of Rs.6,000/- and thus, both of them entered into the suit schedule property in the year 2021 on the condition that the rent would be paid before the 10^th day of every calendar month, but the defendants had not paid the rental amount to the plaintiff from the month of May, 2021 despite several requests and that the attempts of negotiations before the village elders had failed.

3. The defendants Nos.1 and 2 filed a written statement opposing the suit and denying the case of the plaintiff regarding the lease and further stating that the suit schedule property consisting of two portions was the joint family property of P.N.Venkata Reddy, husband of the plaintiff and his sons Jagga Reddy and Janardhan Reddy; that in the presence of his son / Jagannath, P.N.Venkatareddy entered into a lease agreement with the defendant No.1 under a lease deed dated 03.07.2014 (attested by P.V.Jagannath), with conditions that the defendant No.1 had to bear expenditure of Rs.3,00,000/- for removing the roof of his portion and get it repaired by fixing angulars and therefore need not pay any rent and further that whenever P.N.Venkata Reddy repays the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the defendant No.1, that portion of the property shall be delivered to P.N.Venkata Reddy; that the defendant No.2 entered into a similar agreement with P.N.Venkata Reddy under an even dated lease deed with regard to the other portion, with the only difference being that the amount to be spent by the defendant No.2 is Rs.2,00,000/-; that after the death of P.N.Venkata Reddy, his sons have not paid any amount to the defendants and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to file the suit and; that the plaintiff manipulated house tax in her favour after death of her husband by getting her name mutated, though the house property devolved on his sons as well.

4. I.A.No.537 of 2024 was filed by the defendants alleging that the lease deeds were not registered by mistake, however they need to be impounded by sending them to the District Registrar.

5. The petition was opposed by the plaintiff by filing counter, denying the averments in the affidavit annexed to the petition; that the petitioners / defendants are making illegal attempts to reach their unlawful goal and that the petition is liable to be dismissed; that since the lease agreements were not registered, they are inadmissible in evidence and, that there is no merit in the petition.

6. After hearing both the parties, the petition was allowed by the trial Court holding that as per Section 35 of the Stamp Act, an instrument which is not properly stamped, cannot be used