An objection to the admissibility of a document based on substantive law, like the Registration Act, can be raised after it is marked, but if the document (e.g., a sale agreement pre-dating the 2001 amendment) does not require registration, it remains admissible subject to final trial determination.

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/defendant No.2, assailing the order dated 23.02.2021 in I.A.No.87 of 2020 in O.S.No.30 of 2010 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Jangaon (hereinafter referred to as “trial Court”).

2. Heard Sri Jalli Kanakaiah, learned senior counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.2 and Sri A.S.Diwakar, learned counsel representing Mr.Ashok Reddy Kanathala, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Perused the record.

For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in O.S.No.30 of 2010.

3. The brief facts of the case in a nutshell are that the Plaintiff No.3 purchased 7 acres of agricultural land with a mango garden in Sy.No.534, Palakurthy Village, Warangal in the year, 1999 from Defendant No.2 under simple sale deed. He subsequently settled 3.2 acres each to Plaintiffs No.1 and 2, who have been in peaceful, continuous possession, developing the garden. Their names were mutated in revenue records, and pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued.

(i) Defendant Nos.1 and 2 allegedly colluded to grab the land and filed a false appeal before the RDO to cancel the plaintiffs’ revenue records. Defendant No.4 arbitrarily cancelled the passbooks without hearing, violating natural justice. Plaintiffs filed a revision before the Joint Collector, which is pending.

(ii) The defendants also attempted dispossession on 07-02-2010 and 29-02-2010. Plaintiffs obtained an ex-parte interim injunction in O.S.No.16/2010. Given these repeated threats and illegal actions, the plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of title, protection of possession, and injunction in O.S.No.30 of 2010 before the trial Court against the defendants.

4. Pending suit, the defendant Nos.2, 5 and 6 therein have filed an application under Section 151 of C.P.C to demark Exs.A2 to A9 in I.A.No.87 of 2020 in O.S.No.30 of 2010 before the trial Court contending that the subject suit has been instituted for declaration of title and consequential injunction. The plaintiff has been examined as PW-1 and has marked Exhibits A-1 to A-9. Among these, Exhibits A-2 to A-9 are inadmissible in evidence, as they are hit by Section 17(1)(b) and Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act, as well as Section 35(a) of the Indian Stamp Act and sought for deciding the objections raised therein.

5. Per contra, the respondents/plaintiffs therein filed counter denying the averments of the petition in toto contending that the petition is not maintainable in law or on facts. The defendants had the opportunity to object marking of the Exhibits A-2 to A-9 when they were tendered but failed to do so, and after lapse of more than two years filed an application under Section 151 of CPC, seeking to demark Exs.A2 to A9 in I.A.No.87 of 2020 in subject Suit without bona fides. Further contended that the defendants can cross-examine PW-1 regarding these documents, and having been aware of their existence, especially since an earlier suit filed in the year, 2000 was withdrawn before instituting the subject suit, and they cannot now dispute them, further contended that the documents are genuine, and prayed to dismiss the application with exemplary costs.

6. The learned Judge, having considered the contentions of both the parties, considering the written arguments filed by the learned counsel for respondents and relying upon the decisions cited therein in (1) M.Rajagopal Reddy vs State Bank of India and others,¹AIR 2