unstamped or insufficiently stamped - unregistered partition deed = whether the decision of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Rayadurg, Anantapur district, overruling the petitioner's objection for marking of unregistered partition deed dated 20-02-1994 suffers from any illegality.= yes = The law is settled that an unregistered document which requires registration is admissible in evidence under Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, for collateral purpose (see Chinnappareddigari Pedda Muthyalareddy v. Chinnappareddigari Venkatareddy and others1 and Roshan Singh v. Zile Singh2), whereas an unstamped or insufficiently stamped document cannot be admitted into evidence for any purpose including for collateral purpose in the face of bar under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 [see Sanjeeva Reddi v. Johanputra Reddi3 and Rachakonda Ramakoteswara Rao Vs Manohar Fuel Centre, Nereducherla, Khammam4]. 4. In the instant case, the Court below has proceeded on the premise that the document sought to be marked is an unregistered and insufficiently stamped partition deed. However, it misdirected itself in thinking that such a document can be marked in evidence for collateral purpose by placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in Guntupalli Venkata Ramaiah Vs Guntupalli Purnachandra Rao5. 5. From a perusal of the judgment in Guntupalli Venkata Ramaiah (supra), it is evident that the case before this Court arose in a suit for partition, wherein this Court has held that the two documents which were in dispute can be looked into for a collateral purpose in spite of non-registration of the documents, if the stamp duty and penalty is paid. =The respondents are given liberty to pay proper stamp duty and penalty and resubmit the same in evidence thereafter. On payment of such stamp duty and penalty, the Court below shall mark the same into evidence.

published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydispfree.aspx?filename=8794

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY        

Civil Revision Petition No.4559 of 2011

25-01-2012

Kapu Anasuyamma,Anantapur district  

K.Malla Reddy and 2 others, Anantapur district

Counsel for the petitioner:     Sri Naresh Kumar Gundapu  
for Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana
       
Counsel for the respondents:Sri Chetluru Srinivas

? Cases referred:
1. AIR 1969 AP 242
2. AIR 1988 SC 881
3. AIR 1972 AP 373
4. 2003 (2) ALD 638
5. 2010 (6) ALD 4

Order:

        The short issue that arise for consideration in this civil revision
petition is
whether the decision of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Rayadurg,
Anantapur district, overruling the petitioner's objection for marking of unregistered partition deed dated 20-02-1994 suffers from any illegality.

2. The petitioner filed O.S.No.43 of 2008 against the respondents for perpetual
injunction.  During the course of chief-examination of D.W.1, he sought to mark
an unregistered partition deed dated 20-02-1994.  The petitioner raised an
objection for marking the said document on the ground that the same is
unregistered and insufficiently stamped partition deed, which cannot be admitted
in evidence unless it is registered on proper stamp duty.  The Court below has
admitted the document into evidence as Ex.B-1.

3. The law is settled that 
an unregistered document which requires registration
is admissible in evidence under Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, for collateral purpose
(see Chinnappareddigari Pedda Muthyalareddy v. Chinnappareddigari Venkatareddy  and others1 and Roshan Singh v. Zile Singh2), 
whereas an unstamped or 
insufficiently stamped document cannot be admitted into evidence for any purpose including for collateral purpose in the face of bar under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 [see Sanjeeva Reddi v. Johanputra Reddi3 and Rachakonda   
Ramakoteswara Rao Vs Manohar Fuel Centre, Nereducherla, Khammam4].       

4. In the instant case, the Court below has proceeded on the premise that the document sought to be marked is an unregistered and insufficiently stamped partition deed.  
However, it misdirected itself in thinking that such a document
can be marked in evidence for collateral purpose by placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in Guntupalli Venkata Ramaiah Vs Guntupalli Purnachandra
Rao5. 

5. From a perusal of the judgment in Guntupalli Venkata Ramaiah (supra), 
it is
evident that the case before this Court arose in a suit for partition, wherein this Court has held that the two documents which were in dispute can be looked into for a collateral purpose in spite of non-registration of the documents, if the stamp duty and penalty is paid.

6. Without proper comprehension of the said judgment, the Court below has marked
the document in evidence even without ordering payment of proper stamp duty.  In
this view of the matter, the order of the Court below is reversed.
The
respondents are given liberty to pay proper stamp duty and penalty and resubmit
the same in evidence thereafter.  On payment of such stamp duty and penalty, the
Court below shall mark the same into evidence.

7. Subject to the above directions, the civil revision petition is allowed.  No
costs.
8. As a sequel to the disposal of the civil revision petition, C.R.P.M.P.No.6476
of 2011 is dismissed.

                ____________________________    
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J.    
25th January, 2012

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.