Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1830 (TS)

K. Laxman v. K. Kishanji

2025-12-15

RENUKA YARA

body2025
ORDER : RENUKA YARA, J. 1. Heard Mr. K. Jagadishwar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners/respondents/plaintiffs and Mr. K. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.1/petitioner No.1/defendant/No.1. Perused the record. 2. This Civil Revision petition is filed aggrieved by the Order dated 03.04.2023 in I.A.No.137 of 2023 in O.S.No.447 of 2013 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar (for short ‘the Trial Court’), wherein, a petition filed under Section 47 of Indian Stamps Act r/w Section 151 of CPC to send a document to the District Registrar for impounding, has been allowed. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners/ plaintiffs filed a suit for perpetual injunction against the respondents herein to restrain them from causing interference with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property consisting of land in Sy.Nos.126, 127 and 128 admeasuring Ac.6.03 Gts., known as Baltoon, Bowly, Sivar Mouza, Kongara Khurd (A), Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Further, during trial, there was a need for marking an unregistered Partition Deed, dated 10.05.2000. The said document was produced by the respondents/defendants stating that there was a partition and an unregistered Partition Deed, dated 10.05.2000 was executed on a Rs.100/- Non- Judicial stamp paper. Said Document was executed between father of petitioners herein and respondent No.1 herein i.e. defendant No.1. For the purpose of impounding and to mark the same as an Exhibit, the document was sought to be sent to the District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District. Hence, a petition was filed under Section 47 of Indian Stamp Act. 4. The revision petitioners/plaintiffs filed counter opposing the petition denying the averments of the petitioner about the unregistered Partition Deed (Vibaga Patram) dated 10.05.2000. According to the revision petitioners/plaintiffs, the unregistered Partition Deed is a fake and created document. There was never a Partition Deed executed between the parties and Rs.100/- Non-judicial stamp paper was purchased in the name of one Dayanand S/o. Balaji and to whom, it is written as Kishanji, but later the name was altered to Eshwarji and therefore the Non-judicial stamp paper is invalid. The created document date is shown as 10.05.2000. However, the date on the signature of Eswarji is shown as 11.08.2000 and therefore, the document is invalid. The created document date is shown as 10.05.2000. However, the date on the signature of Eswarji is shown as 11.08.2000 and therefore, the document is invalid. Further, in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the affidavit, the Partition Deed date is mentioned as 20.05.2000, but the document date is 10.05.2000 and the date mentioned at the signature is 11.05.2000. Since there are three different dates on the Unregistered Partition Deed, said document is invalid in the eye of law. Therefore, the revision petitioners have sought dismissal of the Interlocutory Application. 5. The learned Trial Court upon considering the case of both the parties has held that the document is not sufficiently stamped and therefore the same cannot be received in evidence. It is further held that for the purpose of receiving the document, said document has to be impounded as requested by the respondents herein and therefore there is a need for sending the document to District Registrar for impounding. The defence raised by the respondents i.e., about the unregistered Partition Deed being a fake document or forged document in the eye of law cannot be considered in an Interlocutory Application. As such, the document was ordered to be sent for impounding to the District Registrar as no prejudice would be caused to the revision petitioners. Aggrieved by said Order, the present Civil Revision petition is preferred. 6. In grounds of revision, it is pleaded that the Trial Court did not consider the admissibility of the document as the same is fabricated and not registered under Section 17 of Registration Act. It is pleaded that the Trial Court did not consider the case of revision petitioners that the unregistered Partition Deed was created after the death of the father of revision petitioners. A reference is made to order in the case of Madurabohina Deepika v. Kuna Sujatha Devi 2017 (3) ALD 1 , wherein, it is held that an unregistered partition deed cannot be admitted in evidence even for collateral purpose. Though the Trial Court came to a conclusion that an unregistered Partition Deed cannot be exhibited, the document was sent to District Register for impounding and such an act is erroneous, as such, prayed that the impugned order be set aside. 7. Though the Trial Court came to a conclusion that an unregistered Partition Deed cannot be exhibited, the document was sent to District Register for impounding and such an act is erroneous, as such, prayed that the impugned order be set aside. 7. During arguments, the learned counsel for revision petitioners/plaintiffs relied upon order of High Court of Judicature, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in the case of B. Balreddy v. B. Ram Reddy and others , 2016 (2) ALD 435 wherein, it is held that in a suit for perpetual injunction, when a document is sought to be exhibited which is unregistered, for the principal purpose of proving possession and not for collateral purpose, there is a manifest error committed by sending the document for impounding. When a document is meant for impounding for proving the main purpose of possession and title, in case said document is unregistered, such a document cannot be admitted and its probative value can be decided at the time of trial. 8. Further, learned counsel for the revision petitioners placed reliance on order of High Court of Judicature, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in the case of Madurabohina Deepika (1 supra) , wherein, it is held that the sale deed dated 17.10.1985 and agreement dated 17.10.1985, which are meant to show partition cannot be received in evidence as said documents are unregistered and inadmissible and said documents are not meant for proving collateral purpose but the main purpose is of exact division of shares i.e. three equal parts. 9. From the aforementioned citations, the important point to be noted is that an unregistered document, after the same is impounded, can be admitted and considered for proving a collateral purpose but not the main purpose. In Maduraboina Deepika’s case (1 supra) , it is clearly indicated at paragraph No.12 that an unregistered instrument after the same is impounded, when the document is a partition deed, can be relied upon to prove collateral purpose of severance of title, nature of possession of various shares but not for the primary purpose of division of joint family properties by metes and bounds. To said extent, an unregistered document i.e. a partition deed can be received in evidence, after the same is impounded, as required under Stamp Act. 10. To said extent, an unregistered document i.e. a partition deed can be received in evidence, after the same is impounded, as required under Stamp Act. 10. The learned counsel for respondent No.1/defendant No.1 relied upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Yellapu Uma Maheswari and another v. Buddha Jagadheeswara Roo and others , 2015 LawSuit (SC) 998 , wherein, it is held that if a party wants to mark the document for collateral purpose, it is open for them to pay stamp duty together with penalty. He further relied upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Javer Chand v. Pukhraj Surana , 1961 LawSuit (SC) 201 wherein, it is held that when a document is produced before a court for admission, the court has to judicially determine the matter before it is marked as an Exhibit in the case. Once a document has been admitted in evidence, it is not open either to the trial Court or to the Court of Appeal or Division to go behind that order. This judgment is not applicable to the present case since the document is not yet admitted and not yet exhibited in evidence. Further, in the case of Prabhu and others v. Shanta and others , MANU/KA/1631/2022 , the High Court of Karnataka held that if an unregistered document is brought up for marking during the course of evidence, only after payment of stamp duty and penalty upon impoundment the document can be marked in evidence. Lastly, in the case of Chinnappareddigari Pedda Muthyalareddy v. Chinnapareddigari Venkatareddy and others , the High Court of Andhra Pradesh (F.B.) has held that an unregistered partition deed comprising of Exhibits B-18 and B-19 and the other counterpart though inadmissible in evidence for want of registration, can be looked into for establishing severance in status. 11. A perusal of the orders/judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for revision petitioners and the learned counsel for respondent No.1 show that firstly an unregistered document which requires registration Under Section 17 of the Registration Act, cannot be admitted in evidence. Further, as per Section 45 of the Registration Act, any document which is unregistered can be impounded by paying requisite stamp duty and penalty and thereafter, said document can be admitted in evidence for considering the same for collateral purpose. Further, as per Section 45 of the Registration Act, any document which is unregistered can be impounded by paying requisite stamp duty and penalty and thereafter, said document can be admitted in evidence for considering the same for collateral purpose. To this extent, there is no dichotomy between the stand taken by both the learned counsels. 12. Coming to the case at hand, the question is whether the unregistered partition deed which is marked on Rs.100/-Non- judicial stamp paper can be sent for impounding to exhibit the same in support of case of defendants i.e. the respondents herein. The Trial Court did not give any reasoning as to whether the document is permitted to be impounded for considering the collateral purpose or the main purpose. However, the document relied upon by the respondents clearly indicates that the unregistered Partition Deed is sought to be impounded for considering the collateral purpose of establishing the severance of status between the revision petitioners and the respondents by way of partition way back in the year 2000, but not for the main purpose of proving partition through metes and bounds. Such being the case, there should be no objection for the revision petitioners to send the document for impounding for the purpose of admitting and exhibiting the same on behalf of the respondents. Though, an unregistered document i.e. the Partition Deed can always be considered for proving the collateral purpose of severance of status among the revision petitioners and the respondents. 13. Further, with respect to defence raised about the unregistered Partition Deed being a fabricated document, said issue cannot be decided in the enquiry during an interlocutory proceeding and has to be considered only after a full-fledged trial, after evidence is led by both the parties i.e. to prove the genuineness of the partition deed or to prove fabrication of the same by the rival parties. 14. In the Interlocutory Application which is under revision, the only point to be considered is whether the unregistered Partition Deed dated 10.05.2000 can be sent for impounding and the same was ordered by the Trial Court. This Court sees no infirmity in the order passed by the Trial Court. As such, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and the Civil Prevention petition is liable to be dismissed. 15. This Court sees no infirmity in the order passed by the Trial Court. As such, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and the Civil Prevention petition is liable to be dismissed. 15. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the Order dated 03.04.2023 in I.A.No.137 of 2023 in O.S.No.447 of 2013 passed by the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.