THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3355 of 2023

ORDER

The present Civil Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated 16.08.2023 in O.S. No. 224 of 2022 (old O.S. No. 148 of 2019) on the file of I Additional District Judge, Medchal-

Malkajgiri District, at Malkajgiri.

2. The revision petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the suit filed for partition and separate possession vide O.S. No. 224 of 2022 under Order VII Rule 1 r/w Section 26 of Civil Procedure Code (for Short ‘CPC’).

3. The respondents herein are the defendants in the above said Suit.

4. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner filed the subject suit for partition of item Nos. 1 to 29 of the ‘B’ schedule properties by metes and bounds and sought for the declaration that he along with defendants in the suit are joint owners and possessors of Ac.14.22 gts., of land situated in Survey Nos. 611 and 612 of Kondamadugu village, Bibi Nagar Mandal, Nalgonda District. The petitioner during the trial, sought to introduce and mark an unregistered deed of family settlement dated 06.03.1995 in his evidence. The contesting respondents Nos. 1 and 6 to 9 objected to the marking of the said document, contending that it was in fact a partition deed and hence inadmissible under Section 17 of the Registration Act due to lack of registration.

5. Upon considering the matter, the XI Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy District, by order dated 20.04.2015, held that the document was inadmissible and further emphasized that the document explicitly divided property and profits among the parties in specific percentages, indicating division by metes and bounds, and not merely severance of status. Therefore, the trial Court held that registration of the said deed is mandatory and could not be accepted if not registered.

6. Being aggrieved by the above said order, the petitioner filed a Civil Revision petition before this Court vide C.R.P. No. 2610 of 2015. This Court while disposing of the said revision petition, upheld the finding of the Court below that the document styled as a family settlement deed amounted to a partition and therefore, required registration under the Registration Act. However, this Court observed that the document could still be received in evidence if the petitioner demonstrates the collateral purpose for which it is sought to be received by the court. This Court further held that such collateral purpose must be independent of the part partition mentioned in the order and shall be considered for the collateral purpose and not for any other purpose.

7. Pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court in the above C.R.P, the petitioner herein filed interlocutory applications vide I.A. No. 1764 and 1765 of 2021 to recall PW-1 and reopen evidence for marking the said document for collateral purposes. The Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy, by an order dated 17.01.2022, allowed both the applications. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent Nos. 1, 6, 7 and 9 filed a civil revision petition before this court vide CRP Nos. 409 and 414 of 2022. This Court dismissed both revision petitions by a common order dated 28.04.2023, holding that the admissibility of the document should be decided by the trial court based on whether the plaintiff satisfied the collateral purpose requirement. Thus, this Court reiterated that reopening evidence did not guarantee admissibility of the document sought to be marked, and that respondents could still raise objections at the appropriate stage.

8. Upon this court dismissing the CRPs filed by respondent/defendants 1,6,7 and 9, the petitioner on 12.07.2023, filed an affidavit in lieu of his further chief examination and attempted to mark the unregistered family settlement deed. The petitioner also contended that the document was impounded and validated by payment of deficit stamp duty and penalty before the District Registrar under Section 42 of the Indian Stamp Act. The defendant