Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 515 (AP)

S. Naga Lingeswar Rao v. J. Venkoba Rao

2012-06-13

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

body2012
JUDGMENT This Civil Revision Petition is filed against order dated 07.06.2011 in O.S.No.71 of 2008 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gooty, Anantapur District, whereby he has refused to mark gift deed dated 01.11.2006, presented by the petitioner, in evidence. The respondent filed O.S.No.71 of 2008 for declaration that he is the sole legal heir of late Parvathi Bai, w/o. Pullaiah, and entitled to receive the amount deposited by her in Monthly Income Scheme A/c.No.40093 in Sub-Post Office, Yadiki in preference and excluding the nominee, who is the defendant in the suit. He also sought for a consequential injunction restraining the defendant from claiming the said amount as nominee. During the trial, the petitioner, who is the defendant, sought to mark gift deed, dated 01.11.2006, wherein Smt.J.Parvathi Bai purportedly gifted the amount lying in Account No.40093, with respect to which the respondent filed the suit. When an objection was raised by the respondent to the admissibility of the document on the ground that the same being a gift has not been registered, the lower Court has accepted the said objection and refused to admit the same into evidence. The order of the lower Court shows that the petitioner has pleaded that since the gift deed pertains to a movable viz., amount lying in post office, it does not require registration. In support of this plea, the petitioner has relied on the judgment in Perumalv. Perumal 44 Madras page 196. The need for registration of a document would arise if any immovable property, value of which is Rs.100/- and above, is sought to be conveyed either by way of gift or non-testamentary instrument in view of Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. The law does not require that an instrument of transfer of movables needs to be registered. In Perumal’scase (cited supra), a Division Bench of Madras High Court, in categorical terms, held that where a gift of immovables and movables was made under unregistered document, the instrument to the extent of movables is valid even in the absence of registration. This legal position is not disputed by Sri K.S.Gopala Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of the above settled legal position, the order of the lower Court is set aside. This legal position is not disputed by Sri K.S.Gopala Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of the above settled legal position, the order of the lower Court is set aside. The lower Court is directed to admit the gift deed, dated 01.11.2006, into evidence to the extent it relates to the money lying in Account No.40093 of Sub-Post Office, Yadiki, Anantapur District. Before closing the case, it is necessary to deal with the approach of the lower Court. The lower Court has refused to consider the ratio in Perumal’scase(cited supra) on the ground that the full text of the judgment is not available before it. This practice, in my opinion, needs to be shunned by the Courts. When a judgment of a superior Court is referred before the subordinate Courts, it is their bounden duty to consider the same by procuring its full text either by insisting on the counsel to file it or by access through internet. When the technology has developed to such an extent that where the full text of the judgments can be easily retrieved through internet, it is no longer permissible for the subordinate Courts to express their inability to look into the full text of the judgment cited by the counsel. Sooner this practice is discontinued by the lower Courts, it is better for the judiciary. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, allowed. As a sequel, CRPMP.No.4204 of 2011, filed for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.