Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1684 (TS)

T. Shyam Kumar v. Dominos Pizza India Ltd.

2025-12-02

B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO

body2025
ORDER : B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J. 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 29.11.2022 passed in I.A.No.290 of 2022 in O.S.No.548 of 2015 by the learned I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. 2 . Petitioners herein are petitioners-defendant Nos.1 to 9, respondent No.1 herein is respondent No.1-plaintiff, respondent Nos.2 to 5 are respondent Nos.2 to 5-defendant Nos.10 to 13 in I.A.No.290 of 2022 in O.S.No.548 of 2015. 3. Petitioners have filed I.A.No.290 of 2022 under Section 151 of CPC with a prayer to de-exhibit Ex.A-2 dated 19.06.2008 which is captioned as “Shop in Shop Agreement”. 4.1 Affidavit is sworn by Smt.K. Annapurna (petitioner No.8 herein) stating that respondent No.1-plaintiff filed a suit for perpetual injunction and damages against the petitioners and respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein, who are the defendants in the suit, in respect of property i.e., Ground Floor, Shop No.1 at Vah Magna Super Centre, No.7-C, Margadarsi Colony, Kothapet, Hyderabad admeasuring approximately 1127 Sq. ft. carpet area with specific boundaries. 4.2 Respondent No.1-plaintiff has obtained the premises as sub-tenant from M/s.Vah Magna Retail Private Limited, who was the principal-tenant, and filed a document captioned as ‘Shop in Shop Agreement’ dated 19.06.2008 claiming that the suit schedule property was let out for a period of 15 years from 01.07.2008. Petitioners herein, who are the defendant Nos.1 to 9, filed their written statement contending that the lease agreement dated 19.06.2008 which was engrossed on a stamp paper of Rs.100/- requires stamp duty of 5% on three times of average annual rental value or on 5% of market value of the property whichever is higher. 4.3 During the evidence of respondent No.1-plaintiff, he got marked Exs.A-1 to A-56. At the time of marking the documents, the petitioners’ counsel was held up in other Court and appeared before the Court after conclusion of marking of the documents and by that time document dated 19.06.2008 was already marked as Ex.A2, which is un-stamped and un-registered document, which cannot be received as evidence and prayed to de-exhibit the same. 5. Respondent No.1-plaintiff filed counter contending that petitioners-defendant Nos.1 to 9 failed to take objection for admission of ‘Shop in Shop Agreement’ at appropriate time, therefore, they cannot be allowed to raise objection at any stage subsequent to the marking of the document as an exhibit. 5. Respondent No.1-plaintiff filed counter contending that petitioners-defendant Nos.1 to 9 failed to take objection for admission of ‘Shop in Shop Agreement’ at appropriate time, therefore, they cannot be allowed to raise objection at any stage subsequent to the marking of the document as an exhibit. Objection of marking a document should be taken before the evidence is tendered and once document is marked, it cannot be objected. Failure to raise a prompt and timely objection amounts to waiver of the necessity for insisting on formal proof of a document. Marking of a document is different from proving of the document. The said document can be relied upon for collateral purpose and prayed to dismiss the same. 6. The learned trial Court after going through the material on record has dismissed I.A.No.290 of 2022 holding that “Since the petitioner did not raise objection for admissibility of the document on the ground of insufficient stamp duty when it was tendered in evidence on 18.12.2019 and marked as Ex.A-2 in the presence of the counsel for the plaintiff, who sought time, for cross-examining the witness, as can be seen from the deposition and docket proceedings of the said date. The petitioners cannot raise the said objection at this stage, after more than two years of chief examination and marking of the said document”. The learned trial Court has placed reliance on Sirikonda Madhava Rao v. N. Hemalatha and others, MANU/SC/1749/2022. 7.1 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Ex.A-2-Shop in Shop Agreement dated 19.06.2008 is for a period of 15 years commencing from 01.07.2008, which is engrossed on stamp of Rs.100/- requires stamp duty of 5% on three times of average annual rental value or on 5% of market value of the property whichever is higher. 7.2 Learned trial Court has accepted the contentions of the petitioners that Ex.A-2-Shop in Shop Agreement is a compulsorily registerable document under the provisions of Section 17A of the Registration Act, 1908, the duration of the lease is for 15 years and the same cannot be looked into even for collateral purpose under the provisions of Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, however merely on the ground that the counsel did not raise any objection at the time of marking of document dismissed the application. Ex.A2  has to be registered within four months from the date of its execution i.e., 19.06.2008. Ex.A2  has to be registered within four months from the date of its execution i.e., 19.06.2008. Counsel to substantiate his contentions has relied upon the decision in the case of A.P. Laly v. Gurram Rama Rao , 2017 SCC OnLine Hyd 327 and prayed to set aside the impugned order. 8. Notice got issued to respondent No.1 in the C.R.P. is served but none appeared for him. 9. It is apt to refer Order XIII Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which reads as under: “3. Rejection of irrelevant or inadmissible documents: The Court may at any stage of the suit reject any document which it considers irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible, recording the grounds of such rejection.” 10. Respondent No.1-plaintiff has filed suit for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant Nos.1 to 12 therein (petitioners- defendant Nos.1 to 9 and respondent No.2 to 5-defendant Nos.10 to 13 herein) from causing any sort of interference, obstruction to the ingress and egress of the plaint schedule property and consequently the defendants may be directed to restore the electricity and water connection which they illegally disconnected on 01.09.2010 and for damages for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of business, to restore the main wall which was demolished on 05.09.2010 by granting mandatory injunction. 11. Petitioners, who are defendant Nos.1 to 9, have filed their written statement and they stated in paragraph No.2 that the duration of the alleged lease agreement dated 19.06.2008 is for 15 years from 01.07.2008. The said lease agreement requires compulsory registration, as such, the same is inadmissible in evidence. The alleged lease agreement is engrossed on a stamp of Rs.100/- stamp paper whereas it requires stamp duty of 5% on three times of average annual rental value or on 5% of market value of the property whichever is higher. Hence, the alleged lease agreement is insufficiently stamped requires to be impounded. Till then, the document cannot be admitted and it cannot be looked into for any purpose. 12.1 Ex.-A2-Shop in Shop Agreement dated 19.06.2008 paragraph No.2(b) of page No.3 goes to show that “the grant of Said Premises to DOMINO’S by VAN MAGNA for the purpose of operating and managing “Domino’s Pizza Store” shall be initially for a period of 15 (fifteen) years (defined hereinafter as “Term”), commencing from 1 st day of July 2008 expiring by efflux of time on 30 th day of June 2023. Thereafter the Term of the Agreement may be renewed/extended further from time to time as may be mutually agreed between the Parties in this respect”. 12.2 Paragraph No.16 of page No.11 speaks about Registration. “REGISTRATION: This Agreement shall be duly stamped and registered within the prescribed time period under the Indian Registration Act 1908. The stamping & registration cost of this Agreement shall be borne by DOMINO’S solely.” 13. In A.P. Laly (supra) the High Court observed that “…The Court has got right to de-exhibit a document when its attention was drawn as to the inadmissibility of the document, as it has got duty to decide the admissibility of a document and eschew irrelevant and inadmissible evidence. The Code of Civil Procedure deals with the procedure in dealing with the suits, whereas the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act deal with the provisions for collection of proper stamp duty on the documents. When a document which was not properly stamped was admitted in evidence and when the Courts attention was drawn, the objection of a party under Section 36 of the Act pales into insignificance and the duty of the Court comes to the forefront to decide with regard to admissibility of such a document. It is for the Court to decide whether a particular document is admissible or not. If it is inadmissible it can de-exhibit such a document”. 14. The learned trial Court, observed at paragraph No.10 that “The document-Ex.A2 was stamped on a stamp paper worth Rs.100/- (Rupees One hundred only). Though the document is styled as “Shop in Shop Agreement”, contents of the same would reveal that it is a sub-lease agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant No.13. It is an unregistered lease deed. The said document requires registration. The plaintiff is not only seeking the relief of perpetual injunction against the petitioners/defendants, but also seeking the relief of damages. It is a compulsory registerable document as the duration of the said lease is for a period of fifteen years under Section 17A of the Registration Act, 1908. The said document cannot be admitted in evidence as it is an unregistered document. Even it cannot be looked into even for collateral purpose under the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, since the entire claim of the plaintiff is based upon the said document-Ex.A-2 only”. 15. The said document cannot be admitted in evidence as it is an unregistered document. Even it cannot be looked into even for collateral purpose under the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, since the entire claim of the plaintiff is based upon the said document-Ex.A-2 only”. 15. Learned trial Court has rightly arrived at the conclusion that Ex.A-2 is compulsorily registerable document as the lease period is for a period of 15 years but surprisingly, taken a U-turn and stated that when once a document is marked, a party cannot object for demarking of the same. 16. Order XIII Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure states that the Court may at any stage of the suit reject any document which is inadmissible. 17.1 In Sirikonda Madhava Rao, (supra) , it was unregistered sale deed (Ex.A1) which is de-exhibited by the learned trial Court and affirmed by the High Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed “that objection as to admissibility of a document on the ground of sufficiency of stamp, has to be raised when the document is tendered in evidence. Thereafter, it is not open to the parties or even the Court to re-examine the order on issue. We have not commented or examined the question of effect of purported non-registration of the sale deed in terms of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and the Registratiion Act, 1908. These questions and issues are left open to be decided by the trial Court”. 17.2 Petitioners have taken objection in the written statement that lease agreement (Ex.A2) dated 19.06.2008 is in admissible in evidence. The facts in the above decision are distinguishable from the facts of the present case on hand. 18. Ex.A-2 clearly states at paragraph No.16 that the Agreement shall be duly stamped and registered within the prescribed time period under the Indian Registration Act, 1908. Admittedly, Ex.A-2 is engrossed on Rs.100/- stamp paper, when there is clear Clause in Ex.A-2 that the same has to be registered within the time frame. But, the learned trial Court has lost sight of the same. 19. Ex.A-2-Shop in Shop Agreement dated 19.06.2008 is in-sufficiently stamped document and it is a compulsorily registerable document. Learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the contentions of the parties and wrongly came to a conclusion that the petitioners have not made out any case. 20. But, the learned trial Court has lost sight of the same. 19. Ex.A-2-Shop in Shop Agreement dated 19.06.2008 is in-sufficiently stamped document and it is a compulsorily registerable document. Learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the contentions of the parties and wrongly came to a conclusion that the petitioners have not made out any case. 20. In view of the decision of the High Court stated supra at paragraph No.13, Ex.A-2-Shop in Shop Agreement dated 19.06.2008 is a compulsory registerable document and the order passed by the learned trial Court is perverse, same is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. 21. Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar in I.A.No.290 of 2022 in O.S.No.548 of 2015 dated 29.11.2022, is set aside. Consequently, the petition filed by the petitioners is allowed without costs. Interim order/s if any shall stand vacated. Miscellaneous petition/s shall stand closed.