ORDER:

Heard Sri Vemuganti Mahesh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri Anil Kiran Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and perused the material available on the record.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the petitioners aggrieved by the docket order dated 27.03.2023 (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned order”) passed by the learned II Additional Districts Sessions Judge, Warangal District at Warangal, in O.S.No.130 of 2022. By the impugned order, the learned Trial Court held that the unregistered partition deed dated 16.08.1986, sought to be marked by the petitioners for collateral purposes, was inadmissible in evidence for want of registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act, notwithstanding the fact that the document had already been impounded and the requisite stamp duty and penalty had been paid under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as per their status before the Trial Court.

I. BRIEF FACTS:

4. The factual backdrop giving rise to the present revision in brief, is as follows:

a) Late Maheshwaram Pedda Raji Reddy, who was the original owner of the suit schedule properties, is stated to have effected a family partition/settlement dated 16.08.1986 among himself and his two sons. Thereafter, he died intestate in the year 1991. Subsequently, disputes arose between the family members regarding the nature, enjoyment and entitlement over the suit properties.

b) The respondents/plaintiffs instituted a suit vide O.S.No.130 of 2022 (Old O.S.No.77 of 2021) before the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Warangal District at Warangal seeking partition and separate possession in respect of suit schedule properties, contending interalia that no prior partition had taken place and that the properties continued to remain as joint family properties.

c) The petitioners/defendants contested the suit by relying upon the alleged partition deed dated 16.08.1986. During the course of trial, the said document was impounded by the District Registrar and requisite stamp duty together with penalty was paid thereon. Thereafter, the petitioners sought to mark the said document in evidence. However, by docket order dated 27.03.2023, the learned Trial Court refused to receive the same in evidence on the ground that the document, being an unregistered partition deed was inadmissible in evidence. Aggrieved thereby, the present Civil Revision Petition came to be filed.

II. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES:

a) Submissions on behalf of the petitioners/Defendant Nos. 1 and 2:

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that original partition deed dated 16.08.1986, having already been impounded by the District Registrar upon payment of the requisite stamp duty and penalty, ought to have been received in evidence, particularly when it constitutes the primary and material piece of evidence to establish the earlier partition between Late M.Somi Reddy, the defendant No.1 and their father.

6. It is further contended that the learned Trial Court erred in holding that the document is wholly inadmissible under Section 17 of the Registration Act, ignoring the settled legal position that an unregistered partition deed can still be admitted for collateral purposes such as proving severance in status, nature of possession or existence of a prior family arrangement. In support of the said contention, reliance was placed upon the judgments in C. Pedda Muthyala Reddy v. C.Venkata Reddy¹1999 (1) APLJ 1 (F.B.) and Amangenti Prameela v. P. Venkat Reddy²2004 ALD (3) 66, wherein it was held that documents evidencing severance of joint family status, though unregistered, are admissible for limited collateral purposes. Reliance was also placed upon Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the judgment in K. Bhaskara Rama Murthy v. K. Satyavathi Devi³2004 ALD (2) 336, wherein it was held that an insufficiently sta