IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1473 of 2019 Date: 02.04.2026 Between Maramganti Padma …Petitioner AND Challa Venkata Ramana Reddy and 3 Others …Respondents

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated 08.04.2019 passed in I.A.No.109 of 2019 in O.S.No.58 of 2013, on the file of the learned V Additional District Judge II- FTC, Warangal at Jangaon, wherein, the petitioner herein, who is the plaintiff No.2 before the trial Court, filed an application under Order 13 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to demark/reject Exs.B1 and B2 and eschew the evidence of DW1 from record.

2. Heard Mr. Anuj Raj, learned counsel representing Mr. Rakesh Sanghi, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.K.Devadas, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs contended that Ex.B1-Memorandum of Past Partition dated 17.10.1982 is not properly stamped and registered. Therefore, they are not admissible in evidence. It is further contended that in the Memorandum of Past Partition, all the parties should have their pre-existing right or antecedent title. It is further contended that in the Memorandum of Past Partition in Schedules 1, 2 and 3, the properties shown were not only ancestral properties but also self acquired properties of Narasimha Reddy. In the self-acquired properties, neither father nor son can demand for partition of self acquired properties. Narasimha Reddy had acquired 19 properties out of which, 14 properties were registered in his favour and 5 properties were purchased through simple sale deeds and that these properties cannot be partitioned among the other four parties of Memorandum of Past Partition unless the said Narsimha Reddy declares that though these 19 properties are standing on his name, they are declared as joint family properties and any division of these self acquired properties would amount to a Gift in the absence of declaration by Narasimha Reddy. It is further contended that Mr.Ch.Sathi Reddy, brother of Narasimha Reddy, and another son of Malla Reddy, were ignored in the Memorandum of Past Partition and hence, it cannot be treated as Memorandum of Past Partition or partition, but as a gift which is compulsorily registerable after paying proper stamp duty and when this Memorandum of Past Partition is a sequel of earlier oral partition, the date of oral partition has to be invariably mentioned. In the absence of date of earlier partition, there will not be subsequent Memorandum of Past Partition.

4. It is further contended that it is clear from filing the certified copy along with the original Memorandum of Past Partition that the said Memorandum of Past Partition is not properly stamped and hence, it is not admissible. However, learned counsel for defendants contended that that earlier in a suit, the same Memorandum of Past Partition was marked and hence, there is no need to raise any objection to mark the same in this suit and further contended that the Respondent No.1 wants to prove that the Court was already convinced by marking the Memorandum of Past Partition that it does not require either stamp duty or registration. One cannot take mistake as a precedent committed due to over sight.

5. It is further submitted that, the Memorandum of Past Partition is chargeable with stamp duty and hence, the same is admissible in law for the purpose of evidence. Certified copy of Memorandum of Past Partition also cannot be marked when original document is available. But the original Memorandum of Past Partition can be marked provided that required stamp duty and penalty is levied on the original Memorandum of Past Partition and a certificate U/s. 16 of Indian Stamp Act, is to be added on the certified copy of the Memorandum of Past Partition and further prayed this Court to