APHC010088192023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3460]

AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY ,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 467/2023 Between:

Tummala Prabhakar Reddy ...PETITIONER AND Tummala Penchala Reddy and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. DR G V RAVI The Court made the following:

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 467 of 2023 O R D E R:-

This Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the docket order dated 10.11.2022 in O.S.No.65 of 2012 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Kovur, SPSR Nellore District.

2. Petitioner is defendant No.1. The suit O.S.No.65 of 2012 was filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 seeking for partition of suit schedule properties into three shares and consequentially allot shares to the Respondent Nos.1 to 3/plaintiffs. The plaintiffs and defendant No.1 are children of one Tummala Penchal Reddy. The said Penchal Reddy and his wife died leaving intestate the plaint schedule property. As the plaintiffs are having a share in the schedule property, they got issued a notice dated 16.11.2011 seeking for partition and as there was no positive reply, the suit was filed.

3. In the written statement, the Petitioner had contended that the schedule property belonged to their mother, i.e. Tummala Penchalamma. It was pleaded that at the time of marriage of defendant No.1 with T.Ratnamma, the said Penchalamma borrowed an amount of Rs.10,000/- from the parents of Ratnamma. After marriage, the wife of the Petitioner demanded repayment of the said money and since Penchalamma was unable to repay the debt, she had executed an unregistered and unstamped settlement deed dated 12.12.1996 and delivered possession of the property in her favour.

4. Therefore, it was contended that the schedule property is no longer an ancestral property. It was further contended that the wife of the Petitioner/defendant No.1 had executed a registered settlement deed in favour of her daughter on 02.02.2008 and the daughter of the Petitioner i.e. Respondent No.5 herein is in possession of the schedule property.

5. In the course of trial, the Petitioner filed I.A.No.54 of 2020 seeking to impound the unregistered and unstamped settlement deed dated 12.12.1996. The said I.A. was allowed on 17.02.2020. Thereupon, the document was sent back to the Court after levying deficit stamp duty of Rs. 23,250/-.

6. At the time of marking, the Respondents/plaintiffs contended that the document requires registration and cannot be marked in evidence even for collateral purpose.

7. The trial Court, vide docket order impugned dated 10.11.2022 upheld the objection and rejected the document from being marked in evidence. Hence, the present revision petition is filed.

8. Heard Sri Siva Prasad Reddy. Venati, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri G.V.Ravi, learned counsel for the Respondents.

9. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the stamp duty having collected on the settlement deed dated 12.12.1996, the said document can be marked in evidence for collateral purpose. He placed reliance on Section 49 of the Registration Act.

10. The counsel for the Respondents contended that even though a document is not registered, the same can be marked for collateral purpose. But in this case, it was contended that the collateral purpose was not specified by the Petitioner.

11. Having heard the respective counsel, this Court opines as follows:

Section 17 of the Registration Act contemplates the documents that are compulsorily registrable. The unregistered documents are prohibited from being received in evidence in view of Section 49(c) of the Registration Act. The proviso thereto provides an exception to a suit for specific performance or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument. Section 49 is ex