ORDER

The instant Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 26.12.2023 in I.A.No.1009 of 2023 in O.S.No.1028 of 2017 passed by the XVIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad (for short, ‘the impugned order’). 2. Heard Mr. Syed Ahmed Ali, learned counsel for the revision petitioners.

3. Vide the impugned order the Court below rejected the above I.A. filed by the petitioners herein under Sections 33 and 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 seeking clarification of the same.

4. A plain perusal of the impugned order would show that the Court below had threadbare considered the request of the petitioners in the light of the factual matrix of the case and has reached to the following conclusion, portion of which is reproduced as under, viz., :

PSK,J crp_317 _2024 ::2:: “Petitioner is branding it as Memorandum of Oral Gift, dated 09.12.2016. Upon, perusal of that document there is no recital on which day it is executed. The stamp paper is said to have been purchased on 09.12.2016. It cannot be a date of execution of such document. The property is not specifically stated so there is no recital as to what extent of house is gifted. There is also recital that it is gifted for his life-time. It is not said what was his part of house he got. There is no schedule property under the gift and it is not mentioned when it was gifted. The document does not qualify to be a gift deed and also does not qualify to be a memorandum of oral gift as there is no recital there in that earlier certain property was orally gifted and now he reduced it in writing. It is true that gift deed is compulsorily registrable document. Mere collection of stamp duty cannot qualify the document unless and until it is registered. Be that as it may, the document itself does not qualify to be a Memorandum of Oral Gift or Gift.”

5. The findings arrived at by the Court below are very relevant and cogent to the dispute that has been raised by the petitioners in the said I.A. The infirmities in the document which are sought to be validated by the petitioners are so glaringly visible and apparent that the findings arrived at by the Court below cannot be, in the said circumstances, said to be either erroneous or contrary to law.

6. In a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the scope of interference is too minimal. This Court, ::3:: PSK,J crp_317 _2024 entertaining a petition under Article 227, would not substitute itself as an appellate forum and threadbare consider the contentions, objections and merits of the dispute. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order passed by the Court below does not warrant interference by this Court, and neither the same can be said to be in excess of jurisdiction or contrary to the facts and evidence available on record.

7. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is devoid of any merit and the same is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. 8. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any in this Civil Revision Petition, shall stand closed.

___________________ P. SAM KOSHY, J Date : 23.02.2024 Ndr