ORDER : M. SEETHARAMA MURTI, J. 1. This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed assailing the order, dated 7.2.2019, of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, passed in IA No. 1575 of 2018 in OS No. 157 of 2014. 2. I have heard the submissions of Sri D. Yathindra Dev, learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioners-defendants 1, 10 to 16 and of Sri Sreenivasa Rao Velivela, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3-plaintiffs. I have perused the material record. 3. The introductory facts, in brief, are as follows: In a suit for partition, the defendants 1, 9 to 16 ['the contesting defendants', for short], who are resisting the suit, filed an application under Section 38(2) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, ['Code', for short] requesting to send the original document, dated 5.4.2002, styled as 'Oppudala Patram' [acceptance deed], filed alongwith the affidavit filed in lieu of examination in chief of D.W. 2, to the District Registrar, Guntur, for deciding the stamp duty collectable on the said document and for collecting the deficit stamp duty and penalty. The said application was resisted by the plaintiffs. On merits and by the orders impugned in this revision, the Trial Court dismissed the said petition. Hence, the defendants 1, 10 to 16 filed this revision. 4. The case of the contesting defendants in support of the afore-stated request, as stated in the affidavit of the 13th defendant, in brief, is this: The suit is filed for partition and other reliefs. The contesting defendants are resisting the suit. The suit is posted for hearing arguments. The 13th defendant got filed written arguments through his Counsel. Thereafter, on the application of the plaintiffs, the evidence was reopened. Further evidence was adduced on behalf of the plaintiffs by examining P.W. 2. Thereafter, the suit is again posted for hearing arguments. While discussing the case facts with the Counsel, it is noticed that though the 13th defendant filed, alongwith the affidavit in lieu of examination in chief of the said defendant, a gift agreement letter, dated 5.4.2002, executed by the 1st plaintiff, 12th defendant and others, the said document was not exhibited as it is not duly stamped. While discussing the case facts with the Counsel, it is noticed that though the 13th defendant filed, alongwith the affidavit in lieu of examination in chief of the said defendant, a gift agreement letter, dated 5.4.2002, executed by the 1st plaintiff, 12th defendant and others, the said document was not exhibited as it is not duly stamped. The 13th defendant made a representation to the Court that he is prepared to pay the deficit stamp duty and penalty on the said document. Further, a request was made on behalf of the present defendants to collect the stamp duty and penalty and receive the document in evidence and permit them to exhibit the same through the 13th defendant. Hence, the present petition is filed. 5. Per contra, the case of the plaintiffs as stated in the counter of the 2nd plaintiff, in brief, is this: The material allegations in the affidavit of the 13th defendant, which is filed in support of the petition, are false. Under the gift deed, there is no consideration. There is no prior agreement. It is an out and out gift deed, as it created right, title and interest over immovable property; and, possession was also delivered under the very said document. The said document is a compulsorily registrable document. It is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served if the document is impounded and the stamp duty and penalty collectable on the instrument are collected. The instrument was executed by six persons, as per the recitals in the first paragraph of the instrument. Thumb impressions of executants 7 & 8 were inserted at a later point of time at the bottom of Pages 1 and 2 of the instrument. Since the document in question is not a registered document, though required under law to be registered, it cannot be received in evidence. It is a false document created for the purpose of this case. D.Ws. 1 and 2 stated in their evidence that D.W. 1 purchased item No. 2 of the plaint schedule property from the shareholders by paying Rs. 10,000/- each. D.W. 1 did not state that item No. 2 of the plaint schedule property is gifted to him without consideration. The provision of law relied upon by the contesting defendants is inapplicable. D.Ws. 1 and 2 stated in their evidence that D.W. 1 purchased item No. 2 of the plaint schedule property from the shareholders by paying Rs. 10,000/- each. D.W. 1 did not state that item No. 2 of the plaint schedule property is gifted to him without consideration. The provision of law relied upon by the contesting defendants is inapplicable. Since the evidence is already closed and the petition is filed at a bleated stage, the petition is liable for dismissal. 6. Learned Counsel for the contesting defendants submitted as follows: The document is styled as 'Oppudala Patram' [acceptance deed]. In view of the contents/recitals in the instrument and the transaction embodied in the document, it is necessary to examine the real nature of the transaction contained in the document by considering the entire content of the document. Since the District Registrar, who is the stamp duty collector, is the competent officer to ascertain the nature of transaction embodied in the document and determine the stamp duty payable on the instrument, the subject petition is filed before the Trial Court for sending it to the said officer for ascertaining the deficit stamp duty and penalty payable on the instrument and collecting the same. Unless the deficit stamp duty and penalty as determined by the competent officer are paid and collected, the document cannot be permitted to be exhibited and cannot even be looked into for collateral purpose. The Trial Court, while dealing with the request in the interlocutory application, unnecessarily went into aspects that are not relevant for consideration and had erroneously dismissed the petition by incorrectly observing that even if stamp duty and penalty are paid and collected, the document cannot be received in evidence even for collateral purpose, in view of the meaning that can be given for the words 'collateral transaction'. The primary consideration required is only with regard to the requirement of collection of deficit stamp duty & penalty on the instrument. The further aspect as to for what collateral purpose the instrument would be admissible, on collection of deficit stamp duty and penalty, is secondary and does not fall for consideration at the primary consideration stage, as the Court, which is required to protect the revenue of the State, is bound to impound (seize) any document not stamped or sufficiently stamped and take steps as per law for collection of the duty/deficit duty and penalty. As per settled legal position when a party makes a request a send a document/an instrument to a stamp duty collector for collection of stamp duty or deficit stamp duty and penalty, the Court has no discretion but to send the said document to the stamp duty Collector for the said purpose for the reason that the Indian Stamp Act is a fiscal enactment and the Court is required to protect revenue of the Government. Hence, the Trial Court was in error in dismissing the application filed by the defendants. 6A. In support of the said contentions, he placed reliance on the order, dated 26.7.2017, in CRP No. 4898 of 2016. 7. Learned Counsel for the plaintiffs while supporting the impugned order and while reiterating the above extracted contentions of the plaintiffs further submitted as follows:--'The 1st plaintiff died. The 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs are continuing the suit filed for partition. The contesting defendants are resisting the suit by raising frivolous grounds. The meaning of the words 'collateral transaction' is explained in a number of decisions of the Supreme Court. Collateral transaction is not the main transaction itself, which is required to be effected by a registered document, that is, a transaction creating any right, title or interest in movable properly of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards. A collateral transaction must be independent of or divisible from the transaction, which itself is required to be effected by a registered document. In the case on hand, the suit is one for partition. The recitals in the document clearly show that it is an out and out gift deed. Therefore, it is a compulsorily registrable document. Therefore, as rightly held by the Trial Court even if the deficit stamp duty and penalty are paid by the contesting defendants and are collected by the stamp duty collector, yet no useful purpose would be served and the exercise that may be undertaken in that regard, therefore, would be a futile exercise.' 8. I have given earnest consideration to the facts and submissions. I have perused the written submissions filed on behalf of the contesting defendants. 9. I have given earnest consideration to the facts and submissions. I have perused the written submissions filed on behalf of the contesting defendants. 9. In view of the prayer in the interlocutory application filed before the Trial Court by the contesting defendants, the only aspect which needed consideration by the Trial Court is-whether their request for sending the document/instrument in question to the stamp duty collector for collection of deficit stamp duty and penalty can be/granted? 10. In the decision in B.V.R. Reddy v. The Adoni Co-operative Central Stores Ltd. and others, AIR 1975 AP 96 , the then High Court of A.P., had an occasion to deal with the same question. The facts of the case disclose that the plaintiff in a suit on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Adoni, filed a document, which was found to be a lease deed requiring payment of stamp duty and registration; therefore, the Court below directed the petitioner to pay the required stamp duty and penalty; instead of complying with that order, the petitioner filed an application under Section 38(2) of the Indian Stamp Act to send the same to the Collector so that he may determine and collect the proper duty and penalty payable on the document; but the lower Court refused to grant the said request by holding that the document cannot now be sent to the Collector under Section 38(2) of the Stamp Act as the civil Court is the competent authority to decide as to the amount of stamp duty and penalty to be collected. In this back drop it was held as follows: "....Section 33 provides for impounding of instruments required to be stamped and not duly stamped. It is provided under Section 38(1) that when a person impounding an instrument has authority to receive evidence and admits such instrument in evidence upon payment of penalty as provided by Section 35, then he shall send to the Collector an authenticated copy of such instrument together with a certificate in writing stating the amount of duty and penalty levied in respect thereof, and shall send such amount to the Collector. It is farther provided in Section 38(2) that in every other case the person impounding the instrument shall send it in original to the Collector who shall deal with it as provided under Section 40. It is farther provided in Section 38(2) that in every other case the person impounding the instrument shall send it in original to the Collector who shall deal with it as provided under Section 40. A reading of Section 38 shows that if the party who filed the document wants it to be admitted in evidence, then only the Court shall collect the stamp duty and penalty and then admit the instrument in evidence. But if the party instead of requiring the document to be admitted in evidence merely wants the Court to send it to the Collector to be dealt with under Section 40, I do not think the Court can have any option but to send it to the Collector as provided under Section 38(2). The Court cannot compel a party to pay the stamp duty and penalty and have it admitted in evidence. It is for the party to have the document admitted in evidence by paying stamp duty and penalty or leave the Court to take action as provided under Section 38(2). It is clear that the intention of the petitioner is not to have the document admitted in evidence by paying stamp duty and penalty and therefore he requested the Court either to send the document to the Collector as provided under Section 38(2) or deliver it to him so that he himself can place it before the Collector for taking action under Section 40. The latter course cannot certainly be adopted because the party may fail to put up the document before the Collector for collecting the proper stamp duty and penalty. Under these circumstances the civil revision petition is allowed and the lower Court is directed to send the instrument which is impounded to the Collector for taking the necessary action as provided under Section 40." 10A. Under these circumstances the civil revision petition is allowed and the lower Court is directed to send the instrument which is impounded to the Collector for taking the necessary action as provided under Section 40." 10A. It is also profitable to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Chilakuri Gangulappa v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanpalle and others, 2001 (2) ALD 114 (SC) : (2001) 4 SCC 19, wherein the Supreme Court while dealing with the same aspect, referred to Section 38 of the Indian Stamp Act, which reads as under: Instruments impounded how dealt with (1) When the person impounding an instrument under Section 33 has, by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence and admits such instrument in evidence upon payment of a penalty as provided by Section 35 or of duty as provided by Section 37, he shall send to the Collector, an authenticated copy of such instrument, together with a certificate in writing, stating the amount of duty and penalty levied in respect thereof, and shall send such amount to the Collector, or to such person as he may appoint in this behalf. (2) In every other case, the person so impounding an instrument shall send it in original to the Collector. And held as follows: "It is clear from the first sub-section extracted above that the Court has a power to admit the document in evidence if the party producing the same would pay the stamp duty together with a penalty amounting to ten times the deficiency of the stamp duty. When the Court choose to admit the document on compliance of such condition the Court need to forward only a copy of the document to the Collector, together with the amount collected from the party for taking adjudicatory steps. But if the party refuses to pay the amount aforesaid the Court? has no other option except to impound the document and forward the same to the Collector. On receipt of the document through either of the said avenues the Collector has to adjudicate on the question of the deficiency of the stamp duty. But if the party refuses to pay the amount aforesaid the Court? has no other option except to impound the document and forward the same to the Collector. On receipt of the document through either of the said avenues the Collector has to adjudicate on the question of the deficiency of the stamp duty. If the Collector is of the opinion that such instrument is chargeable with duty and is not duly stamped "he shall require the payment of the proper duty or the amount required to make up the same together with a penalty of an amount not exceeding ten times the amount of the proper duty or of the deficient portion thereof." Therefore, the Trial Court, which is bound by the legal position obtaining, ought to have considered the request of the contesting defendants and allowed the interlocutory application instead of dismissing it and ought to have sent the instrument in question to the Stamp Duty Collector concerned for the desired purpose. 11. The other aspects, which need to be considered by the Trial Court, though at an appropriate later stage, are 'What is a collateral purpose? Whether the document/instrument in question could be permitted to be used for any collateral purpose and be permitted to be exhibited for the said purpose?' 11A. In the first place, it is to be noted that a document, which is required to be stamped and which is not stamped or insufficiently stamped, is not admissible in evidence even for collateral purpose unless the stamp duty/deficit stamp duty and penalty payable thereon are paid and collected by a competent authority. The said proposition of law is laid down in Yellapu Uma Maheswari v. Buddha Jagadheeswara Rao, 2016 (1) ALD 40 (SC) : (2015) 16 SCC 787 . The word collateral purpose is explained in the decision of the Supreme Court in K.B. Saha and Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Development Consultant Limited, 2008 (6) ALD 92 (SC) : (2008) 8 SCC 56, wherein the Supreme Court held as follows: "A document required by law to be registered, if unregistered, is inadmissible as evidence of a transaction affecting immovable property, but it may be admitted as evidence of collateral facts, or for any collateral purpose that is for any purpose other than that of creating, declaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing a right to immovable property." 11B. In the present case, since the matter is at the first stage of sending the document to the Stamp Duty Collector for ascertaining the nature of the transaction embodied in the instrument and collection of deficit stamp duty, if any, and penalty thereon, there is no need to go into the other aspect as to what could be the collateral purpose for which the contesting defendants would be permitted to rely upon the document in question, after paying the deficit stamp duty and penalty on the instrument, as may be determined by the Stamp Duty Collector. Suffice if it is observed that it is for the Trial Court to consider the said aspect at an appropriate later stage when the contesting defendants make a request in that regard, after they pay the deficit stamp duty and penalty as determined by the Collector concerned. 12. For the afore-stated reasons and in view of my finding that when a request of the present nature is made by a party, the Court has no option but to send the document to the Stamp Duty Collector, it follows that the impugned order brooks interference. 13. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and IA No. 1575 of 2018 in OS No. 157 of 2014 is allowed directing the Trial Court to send the document/instrument in question to the Stamp Duty Collector concerned for ascertaining the nature of the transaction embodied in the document/instrument and collecting deficit stamp duty, if any & penalty payable on the said instrument. It is made clear that in the event the deficit stamp duty and penalty are paid by the defendants as determined by the Stamp Duty Collector, the Trial Court shall then consider the admissibility of the said instrument for any collateral purpose, however, following the precedential guidance of the Supreme Court wherein the word 'collateral purpose' is explained, nonetheless, uninfluenced by the observations on the said aspect, which are already recorded in the order, which is now set aside. 14. There shall be no order as to costs. 15. Miscellaneous