##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1984 of 2019

DATE: 17.04.2026

Between:

Sardar Bishan Singh …Petitioner

AND Muchinthala Laxma Reddy and 14 others

…Respondents

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India by the petitioner/plaintiff aggrieved by the Order passed in I.A.No.88 of 2016 in O.S.No.112 of 2004 dated 30.07.2019 on the file of the learned Additional Senior Civil

Judge, Karimnagar.

2. Heard Sri R. A. Chary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N. Janardhan Reddy, learned counsel for the

respondents. Perused the entire material on record.

2 of 7 NNR, J

CRP_1984_2019

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter

referred to, as they are arrayed before the Trial Court.

4. The brief facts of the case are that during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.88 of 2016 under Sections 33 and 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 r/w. Section 161 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to impound the proposed simple sale deed dated 27.04.1960 on the ground that the document is unstamped and unregistered, and to determine the

stamp duty payable on the said document.

5. The learned trial Court, initially dismissed the said petition. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs approached this Court by filing CRP No.1997 of 2016. This Court vide order dated 13.04.2019, set aside the earlier order of the trial Court and directed the trial Court to decide the admissibility of the said document after hearing both sides before proceeding

further with the trial.

6. Thereafter, the learned trial Court reconsidered the matter and passed the impugned docket order dated 30.07.2019,

3 of 7 NNR, J

CRP_1984_2019

holding that the simple sale deed dated 27.04.1960 was regularized under Rule 22 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989, and that the Mandal Revenue Officer had collected stamp duty and issued certificates under Forms 13-B and 13-C. The trial Court further held that the document is admissible in evidence and rejected the contention

of the plaintiffs that the document is unstamped.

7. Aggrieved by the said docket order, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed contending inter alia that the learned trial Court failed to properly apply the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, particularly Sections 33 and 35 thereof, and

erroneously held that the document is admissible in evidence.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the trial Court ought to have impounded the document as it was unstamped and unregistered, and that the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 cannot cure the defect of non-payment of stamp duty as required under the Stamp Act. It is further contended that unless the document is duly impounded and the requisite stamp

4 of 7 NNR, J

CRP_1984_2019

duty and penalty are paid, the document cannot be admitted in

evidence even for collateral purposes.

9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the transaction covered by the simple sale deed was regularized under the provisions of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act and Rules, and that the Mandal Revenue Officer has already collected the necessary stamp duty and issued certificates under Forms 13-B and 13-C. Therefore, according to the respondents, the learned trial Court rightly held

that the document is admissible in evidence.

10. In view of the rival submissions and the material available

on record, the following point arises for consideration:

“Whether the trial Court was justified in holding that the simple sale deed dated 27.04.1960 is admissible in evidence without impounding the document under Sections 33 and 35 of the Indian

Stamp Act, 1899?”

11. Both parties have admittedly placed their respective contentions on record. The principal grievance of the petitioners bef