ORDER:

The revision petitioners/defendants have filed this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the impugned docket order dated 16.11.2022 in O.S.No.80 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet.

2. The respondent/plaintiff has filed the original suit in O.S.No.80 of 2014 for perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property - land admeasuring Ac.3.36 guntas in Survey No.371 situated at Ananthasagar Village, Chinnakodur Mandal, Medak District claiming that he has purchased it through a registered sale document No.3246 of 2014 dated 02.06.2014 from Dommata Ram Reddy and Smt. Madapa Mallavva and that their vendors got validated an unregistered sale deed dated 24.07.1970 and that they were in possession till it was sold to the plaintiff. The trial Court has permitted the plaintiff for marking the attested copy of said document. It is an unregistered sale deed executed on Rs.100/- stamp paper against the provisions of Registration and Stamps Acts, the document was marked holding that no injustice would be caused to the defendants by marking the same and the defendants will have an opportunity to cross examine the witness with respect to the authenticity and contents of the said document and mere marking will not give finality to the document.

3. The respondent/plaintiff has filed counter in I.A.No.1 of 2023 alleging that the said document was validated as per Section 5-A of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattardar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short (cid:145)ROR Act(cid:146)), required stamp duty and penalty was paid through challan dated 16.04.1994, accordingly, the private sale deed dated 24.07.1970 was regularized by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Chinnakodur Mandal under Section 5-A of the ROR Act, as per the power conferred on the Mandal Revenue Officer under the said enactment. Pursuant to the regularization proceedings issued in favour of the vendors of the plaintiff, their names were also recorded as pattadars and possessors till the year 2010-11. But the petitioner No.1/defendant in collusion with the revenue authorities got entered his name in pahanies for the years 2011-12 and 2012-13 and tried to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff. On the application made by the plaintiff, the Tahsildar, Chinnakodur Mandal has issued proceedings No.B/748/2014 for entering the names of the plaitniff(cid:146)s vendors directing the Village Secretary to enter his name, accordingly as per the orders on 02.06.2014 entries were rectified. Therefore, the contention of the revision petitioners that the private sale deed is against the Section 17 (1) of Registration Act, 1908 is not valid. The unregistered sale deed dated 24.07.1970 was validated as per Section 5-A of the ROR Act and the concerned Tahsildar has issued true copy of the same. The learned judge of the trial Court has rightly allowed for exhibiting the said document and prayed for dismissal of the civil revision petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants and the respondent/plaintiff. The submissions made on either side have received due consideration of this Court.

5. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as (cid:147)plaintiff and defendants(cid:148) as arrayed in the original suit.

6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners /defendants would submit that i) true copy of unregistered document dated 24.07.1970 in respect of the immovable property worth more than Rs.100/- cannot be received in evidence; ii) when the original itself is inadmissible, the question of receiving the true copy of same does not arise; and iii) the respondent/plaintiff cannot be permitted to introduce such document in support of his case in a suit for perpetual injunction to establish his possession.

7. Per contra, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff would submit that the original sale deed date 24.07.1970 is validated as per Sect