This revision is filed challenging the Docket order dt.07.06.2013 in OS.No.41 of 2011 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Adilabad.

2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit. The suit was filed by petitioner seeking a declaration of his title in respect of an extent of Acs.7.38 gts. in Sy.No.51/A at Buddikonda Shivar Mandal, Neredigonda District, Adilabad, for a perpetual injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from interfering with the alleged peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in respect of the above land; for correction of the entry in Revenue records relating to the Pattadar column by deleting the name of one Ramulu and substituting the name of the plaintiff; and costs.

3. The defendant Nos.1 to 3 filed a written statement opposing the claim of the plaintiff. Issues were framed and trial commenced. The affidavit of PW1 in lieu of chief-examination was filed; he entered the witness box and confirmed the said affidavit as true. He also marked Exs.A.1 to A.33. He also sought to mark a document filed as Kharidnama dt.19.07.1974.

4. The marking of this document was objected to by counsel for respondents on the ground that the said document is a compulsorily registrable document under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, as it extinguishes the title of the executant in respect of property of value more than Rs.100/-. The petitioner’s counsel requested the Court below to mark the document subject to objection.

5. However, by docket order dt.07.06.2013, the Court below held that the said document required registration and therefore, it cannot be admitted and marked in evidence. It followed the decision of the Supreme Court in K.B. Sana and Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Development Consultant Ltd. (AIR 2008 SCW 4829). It thus sustained the objection of the respondents and rejected the request of the counsel for petitioner.

6. Challenging the same this revision is filed. Heard Sri K. Rama Subba Rao – counsel for the petitioner at the stage of admission.

7. The counsel for petitioner contended that the impugned order is contrary to law; that the document in question is a sale deed dt.19.07.1974 which had already been impounded by the Trial Court and penalty was collected by it; therefore, under Section 35 (a) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, it is admissible in evidence and the Trial Court ought not to have refused to admit/mark the document; the judgment in K.B. Sana (1 supra), relied upon by the counsel for respondents before the Trial Court is inapplicable as it was a case of non-registration of a lease deed and not of case relating to a sale deed or other conveyance; and that the effect of non-registration of the above document can be gone into during the course of trial and need not be considered at the stage of marking the above document in view of Section 35 (a) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The counsel also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in State, throughSpecial Cell, New Delhi v. Navjot Sandhu @ Afshan Guru and others (2003) 6 SCC 641) and Mulla Alamsabgari Dastigiri, Kurnool v. B. Pullamma and others (2004 (4) ALD 82).

8. Section 17(1) (b) of the Registration Act,1908 states :

“17.(1)….The followings shall be registered, if the property to which they relate is situate in a district in which and if they have been executed on or after the date on which, Act No.XVI of 1864, or the Indian Registration Act, 1866 (20 of 1866), or the Indian Registration Act, 1871 (8 of 1871), or the Indian Registration Act, 1877 (3 of 1877), or this Act came or comes into force, namely :

(a) Instruments of gift of immovable property ;

(b) other non-testamentary instruments which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property;”

9. A reading of the document filed by the petitioner dt.19.07.1974 in