Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 43772
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. Sarath, J
Thotakura Narsaiah – Appellant
Versus
Revu Shivaiah – Respondent
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 2826, 2837, 2858 AND 2898 of 2025
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Procedural Law
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Registration Act, 1908 - Section 17 - Stamps Act, 1899 - Section 35 - Admissibility of documents - An ordinary sale deed which is unstamped and unregistered is invalid and cannot be received as evidence. (Para 23)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners filed a suit for declaration of title, perpetual injunction, and recovery of possession. After the evidence was closed and the matter was posted for reply arguments, the petitioners filed four applications: one to amend the prayer in the plaint to correctly identify schedule properties for injunction and recovery of possession, one to receive additional documents including a partition document and sale deed, and two others to reopen evidence and recall a witness for marking said documents. All four applications were dismissed by the trial court.
Findings of Court:
The trial court correctly dismissed the amendment petition as it was filed too late and would change the nature of the suit without showing due diligence. The petition to receive documents was rightly dismissed because the sought documents were unregistered and unstamped, rendering them invalid under the Registration Act and Stamps Act. Consequently, the requests to reopen evidence and recall the witness became redundant.
Issues: Whether an amendment of the prayer is permissible at the stage of final arguments and whether unregistered, unstamped documents can be admitted as evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: Amendments to pleadings after trial commencement are prohibited unless the party demonstrates that they could not have raised the matter earlier despite due diligence. Additionally, documents that fail to comply with statutory registration and stamping requirements are legally invalid and inadmissible.
Result: Civil Revision Petitions dismissed.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Kunal Kakad, B. Mohan
For the Respondents: K. Jagadishwar Reddy
COMMON ORDER:
1. Since all the Civil Revision Petitions are connected to each other and arising out of one and the same suit i.e. O.S.No.65 of 2013 on the file of learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bhuvanagiri, they are heard together and being disposed of by a common order.
2.
i) C.R.P.No.2826 of 2025 is filed against the dismissal order dated 17.07.2025 in I.A.No.199 of 2025 in O.S.No.65 of 2013, which was filed to amend the prayer in the plaint.
ii) C.R.P.No.2858 of 2025 is filed against the dismissal order dated 17.07.2025 in I.A.No.200 of 2025 in O.S.No.65 of 2013, which was filed to receive the additional documents.
iii) C.R.P.No.2898 of 2025 is filed against dismissal order dated 17.07.2025 in I.A.No.201 of 2025 in O.S.No.65 of 2013 which was filed to reopen the evidence.
iv) C.R.P.No.2837 of 2025 is filed against the dismissal order dated 17.07.2025 in I.A.No.202 of 2025 in O.S.No.65 of 2013, which was filed to recall the PW1 for the purpose of marking documents.
3. Heard Sri Kunal Kakad, learned Counsel appearing for Sri B.Mohan, Learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri K.Jagadishwar Reddy, learned Counsel for the unofficial respondents and perused the record.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs would submit that the father and grandfather of petitioners/plaintiffs have filed a suit against the respondents/defendants, for declaration of title and perpetual injunction and recovery of possession and cancellation of registered Doc.No.1095/2010 dated 01.04.2010 and for rectification of revenue records in respect of A, B and C schedule properties situated at Veeravally Village, Bhongir Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District and in the said suit evidence was closed and was coming for reply arguments of the plaintiffs.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the suit was filed by the father and grandfather of the petitioners in the year, 2013 for declaration of title, perpetual injunction, recovery of possession and cancellation of Registered Sale deed in respect of “A to C” schedule lands against the respondents/defendants and due to typographical mistake it was mentioned as A to C schedule properties, instead of ‘A & C’ schedule properties for perpetual injunction, and recovery of possession in respect of ‘B’ Schedule property, by cancelling the Sale Deed No.1095/2010 dated 01.04.2010 executed by the respondents Nos.1 to 4 in favour of respondent Nos.5 to 7 in respect of land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.2.22 guntas in Sy.Nos.85/AA/1, as null and void and therefore filed a petition to amend the prayer of the plaint as perpetual injunction in respect of A & C Schedule properties and recovery of possession of respect of B-Schedule properties.
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would further submit, after closure of the evidence on both sides, the petitioners could trace a document in their house, which reflects partition among their father and brothers of his father, wherein the grandfather of the petitioners/plaintiff No.1 made partition of all lands in Sy.No.85, on 12.04.1996 and the said document is crucial to prove their case.
7. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the petitioners also filed another petition to mark the said document recall of evidence of PW1 is essential. As the suit was at the stage of arguments, the petitioners filed another petition reopen the evidence of PW1.
8. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would further submit that, all the petitions filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs were dismissed by separate impugned orders dated 17.07.2015. Being aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petitions are filed.
9. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would further submit that, the trial court ought to have seen that after commencement of arguments the petitioners traced the documents and therefore failed to consider the petition to receive the documents. He would further submit that the tr
