Judgment This revision is filed by the defendants in O.S. No.365 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam, assailing the order dated 18.11.2009 2. The revision petitioners herein are the defendants and the respondents herein are the plaintiffs in the suit in O.S. No.365 of 2007. The respondents filed the suit for mandatory injunction and permanent injunction. When the respondents, during the course of trial, sought to mark a document styled as “Haami Pathram” as exhibit, the revision petitioners took objection and accordingly they filed the objections before the trial Court stating that the “Haami Pathram” requires registration under Section 17(b) of Registration Act. The trial Court after hearing both sides, overruled the objections raised by the revision petitioners for marking “Haami Pathram” by impugned order dated 18.11.2009 holding that though a right is created, the document is not supported by consideration of Rs.100/-and upwards, and as such, it does not require stamp duty/registration. 3. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material made available on the record. 4. The respondents claimed that they are having irrigation bode “ABCD” and drawing water since the date of their purchase for cultivating their lands. The said bode is in existence even prior to 1967. The vendor of the revision petitioners had executed “Haami Pathram” to the father of the first plaintiff and defendant No.1 stating that he would not change the nature and features of the bode even in the event of sale in future. The respondents have no other water source for cultivating their lands except through the said bode. On 20.06.2007, when the revision petitioners ploughed the irrigation bode and as a result of consequent events, they filed the present suit. 5. It is contended by the revision petitioners that the bode is merged with the soil long back and the respondents never draw the water through the bode and they got other source of water to the east of their lands. 5. It is contended by the revision petitioners that the bode is merged with the soil long back and the respondents never draw the water through the bode and they got other source of water to the east of their lands. Apart from that, it is contended that since the document “Haami Pathram” creates interest in present and future to draw water from bode, it requires registration under Section 17(b) of Registration Act, and as such, it is inadmissible in evidence and in support of their contention, they relied on the decision of this Court in Natrambaka Krishnaiah v. Nellore Audinarayana (2006 (1) ALT 76).It is further contended that the trial Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the respondents are entitled to proceed with the trial by marking Haami Pathram as exhibit, though there are catena of decisions that stamp duty and penalty shall have to be collected before marking such document. 6. There is no dispute with regard to execution and genuineness of the Haami Pathram. The main objection of the revision petitioners is that since Haami Pathram creates interest in drawing the water from bode and since the subject matter of the suit is revolved around the said bode, it requires registration, and as such, it is inadmissible in evidence. A Photostat copy of Hami Pathram has been placed before this Court. A plain reading of the same goes to show that the respondents have been drawing the water from the bode prior to execution of the Haami Pathram and the same was categorically asserted by the executant, who is vendor of the revision petitioners. The executant assured the respondents that they would not be obstructed from drawing water from the bode for cultivating of their lands, in the event of sale. In view of the same, it can be construed that a right is already created to the respondents for drawing water from the bode prior to execution of the Haami Pathram. Haami Pathram was executed only to continue that right. The respondents sought to mark Haami Pathram only to show a right was already created with regard to drawing water from the bode in their favour by the vendor of the revision petitioners and they have been assured to continue that right even in the event of sale. To that limited extent, the Haami Pathram can be marked as exhibit for collateral purpose. To that limited extent, the Haami Pathram can be marked as exhibit for collateral purpose. Further, Haami Pathram is not supported by any consideration. As per Section 17(b) of the Registration Act, the document is required to be supported by consideration of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards in immovable property. The decision of this Court relied on by the revision petitioners in Natrambaka Krishnaiah v. Nellore Audinarayana (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand because in the said decision the agreement/understanding is that petitioner-plaintiff would be permitted to formulate the channel from the land of respondent-defendant, and thus it creates right in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff therein, whereas in the case on hand, the right was already created and the Haami pathram was executed only to assure that the respondents shall continue that right in the event of sale by the executant. 7. In view of the above reasons and in the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned order does not suffer from any error or irregularity warranting interference from this revisional Court, and as such, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.