1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOs. OF 2022

(@SLP(C) No. 14882-14883/2022)

SIRIKONDA MADHAVA RAO

.....

APPELLANT (S)

VERSUS

N. HEMALATHA & ORS.

.....

RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

It is accepted that the document dated 14.04.1993 purporting

to be an unregistered sale deed was marked as Exhibit No. A-1 on

27.11.2006.

In view of the aforesaid position, we do not think that the

impugned judgment passed by the High Court directing that the

aforesaid document should be de-marked and not be treated as an

exhibit, is correct and in accordance with law. Once a document has

been admitted in evidence, such admission cannot be called in

question at any stage of the suit or proceedings on the ground that

the instrument has not been duly stamped. Objection as to

admissibility of a document on the ground of sufficiency of stamp,

has to raised when the document is tendered in evidence.

Thereafter, it is not open to the parties, or even the court to re-

examine the order or issue.¹ To this extent, the impugned judgment

is set aside and the appeal is allowed.

We clarify that we have not commented or examined the

1 See Javer Chand and Ors. Vs. Pukhraj Surana, (1962) 2 SCR 333 and

Shyamal Kumar Roy Vs. Sushil Kumar Agarwal, (2006) 11 SCC 331.

Digitally signed by

BABITA PANDEY

Date: 2022.11.26

12:38:53 IST

Reason:

Signature Not Verified

2

question of effect of purported non-registration of the sale deed

in terms of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and the Registration

Act, 1908. These questions and issues are left open to be decided

by the trial court. All pleas and contentions raised by the parties

in this regard can be raised before the trial court, which will

examine the said aspect and other issues without being influenced

by the present order and the impugned judgment.

The appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms, without an

order as to costs.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

..................J.

(SANJIV KHANNA)

..................J.

(J.K. MAHESHWARI)

NEW DELHI;

NOVEMBER 14, 2022.

3

(REVISED FOR APPEARANCE)

ITEM NO.46 COURT NO.8 SECTION XII-A

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 14882-

14883/2022

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 12-04-2022

in CRP No. 979/2021 20-07-2022 in RCRPMP No. 2/2022 passed by the

High Court For The State Of Telangana At Hyderabad)

SIRIKONDA MADHAVA RAO Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

N. HEMALATHA & ORS. Respondent(s)

Date : 14-11-2022 These petitions were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI

For Petitioner(s)

Mr. Y. Krishna Mohan Rao, Adv.

Mr. T. V. George, AOR

For Respondent(s)

Mr. B. Adinarayana Rao, Sr. Adv.

Mr. B. Suyodhan, Adv.

Mr. Kumar Shashank, Adv.

Ms. Tatini Basu, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel, the Court made the following

O R D E R

Leave granted.

The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed order.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

(BABITA PANDEY)

COURT MASTER (SH)

(R.S. NARAYANAN)

COURT MASTER (NSH)

(Singed order is placed on the file)

4

ITEM NO.46 COURT NO.8 SECTION XII-A

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 14882-

14883/2022

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 12-04-2022

in CRP No. 979/2021 20-07-2022 in RCRPMP No. 2/2022 passed by the

High Court For The State Of Telangana At Hyderabad)

SIRIKONDA MADHAVA RAO Petitioner(s)