IN THE COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA CIVIL REVISION PETITOIN NO.1286 of 2025

15^th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 Between:

Sri Mohammed Akram, Hyderabad …Petitioner/defendant And Sri Mohammed Majeed, Hyderabad.

…Respondent/plaintiff

ORDER:

1. Heard Mr. M.A.K. Mukheed, learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant and Mr. Mohammed Abdul Quadeer, learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff. Perused the record.

2. This Civil Revision petition is filed by the petitioner/defendant aggrieved by the order passed by the learned V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in I.A. No. 53 of 2024 in O.S. No. 1040 of 2019 dated 06.02.2025, wherein a petition filed by the respondent/plaintiff under Sections 33 and 35 of the Stamp Act, 1899, to send the original sale deed receipt dated 11.07.1975 in Urdu language along with English translation copy for collection of stamp duty and penalty to the District Registrar, Hyderabad, has been allowed.

3. The background facts leading to the filing of the Civil Revision petition are that the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No. 1040 of 2019 for declaration as owner and possessor of the suit schedule property consisting of house bearing Municipal No. 2-4-666/20, Sunder Nagar, Kachiguda, Hyderabad, and for perpetual injunction. In support thereof, the respondent relied upon copy of registered release deed Document No.1524 of 2019 dated 27.03.2019, copy of rectification deed Document No. 1818 of 2019 dated 12.04.2019, copy of plaint in O.S. No. 2901 of 2018, copy of award passed by Lok Adalat dated 25.02.2019, original receipt dated 11.07.1975 with English translation and original memorandum of gift (Hiba) dated 21.07.1997. At the time of trial for the purpose of marking the documents, the respondent/plaintiff relied upon Exs.A.1 to A.21. The trial Court, having marked Exs.A.1 to A.21, has taken objection to marking of original sale deed receipt dated 11.07.1975 in Urdu with English translation. On account of the objection taken by the trial Court, the respondent has filed the petition under Sections 33 and 35 of Indian Stamp Act, 1899, to send said original sale deed receipt dated 11.07.1975 to the District Registrar, Hyderabad, for impounding.

4. The revision petitioner filed counter-affidavit alleging that the original sale deed receipt dated 11.07.1975 is a fraudulent document, not an original document, created through a photocopy germinated from the registered sale deed of the revision petitioner's mother-in-law vide Document No. 2638 of 1975 dated 09.07.1975. Further, the signatures purported to be made on the original sale deed receipt dated 11.07.1975 are forged signatures. A photocopy is prepared on an old paper which is not having any stamp and the signatures are forged. In that context, learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Hari Om Agarwal v. Prakashan Malaviya1, wherein, it is held that photocopy of the agreement original of which is lost cannot be admitted in evidence. Further, it is held that a copy of a document, original of which is not duly stamped and lost,

1 (2007) 8 SCC 514

cannot be impounded and cannot be admitted as evidence under Indian Stamp Act, 1899. By relying upon the aforementioned judgment, the revision petitioner opposed the sending of the alleged document for impounding.

5. The trial Court, after considering the stand taken by both the parties i.e., the respondent seeking the document to be sent to District Registrar, Hyderabad, for impounding for better adjudication of the case and the respondent opposing the same, held that the document can be sent for impounding to the District Registrar, Hyderabad, as every opportunity should be given to the respondent who has filed the suit seeking declaration of title and that objections regarding admissibility or relevancy can be examined at a later stage. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision petition