Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 207 (AP)

Tummala Prabhakar Reddy v. Tummala Penchala Reddy

2025-01-31

NYAPATHY VIJAY

body2025
JUDGMENT : 1. This civil revision petition is filed questioning the docket order dated 10.11.2022 in OS No.65 of 2012 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Kovur, SPSR Nellore District. 2. Petitioner is defendant No.1. The suit OS No.65 of 2012 was filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 seeking for partition of suit schedule properties into three shares and consequentially allot shares to the respondent Nos.1 to 3/plaintiffs. The plaintiffs and defendant No.1 are children of one Tummala Penchala Reddy. The said Penchala Reddy and his wife died leaving intestate the plaint schedule property. As the plaintiffs are having a share in the schedule property, they got issued a notice dated 16.11.2011 seeking for partition and as there was no positive reply, the suit was filed. 3. In the written statement, the petitioner had contended that the schedule property belonged to their mother, i.e., Tummala Penchalamma. It was pleaded that at the time of marriage of defendant No.1 with T. Ratnamma, the said Penchalamma borrowed an amount of Rs.10,000/- from the parents of Ratnamma. After marriage, the wife of the petitioner demanded repayment of the said money and since Penchalamma was unable to repay the debt, she had executed an unregistered and unstamped settlement deed dated 12.12.1996 and delivered possession of the property in her favour. 4. Therefore, it was contended that the schedule property is no longer an ancestral property. It was further contended that the wife of the petitioner/defendant No.1 had executed a registered settlement deed in favour of her daughter on 02.02.2008 and the daughter of the petitioner i.e., respondent No.5 herein is in possession of the schedule property. 5. In the course of trial, the petitioner filed IA No.54 of 2020 seeking to impound the unregistered and unstamped settlement deed dated 12.12.1996. The said IA was allowed on 17.02.2020. Thereupon, the document was sent back to the Court after levying deficit stamp duty of Rs.23,250/-. 6. At the time of marking, the respondents/plaintiffs contended that the document requires registration and cannot be marked in evidence even for collateral purpose. 7. The Trial Court, vide docket order impugned dated 10.11.2022 upheld the objection and rejected the document from being marked in evidence. Hence, the present revision petition is filed. 8. Heard Sri Siva Prasad Reddy Venati, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri G.V. Ravi, learned Counsel for the respondents. 9. 7. The Trial Court, vide docket order impugned dated 10.11.2022 upheld the objection and rejected the document from being marked in evidence. Hence, the present revision petition is filed. 8. Heard Sri Siva Prasad Reddy Venati, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri G.V. Ravi, learned Counsel for the respondents. 9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the stamp duty having collected on the settlement deed dated 12.12.1996, the said document can be marked in evidence for collateral purpose. He placed reliance on Section 49 of the Registration Act. 10. The Counsel for the respondents contended that even though a document is not registered, the same can be marked for collateral purpose. But in this case, it was contended that the collateral purpose was not specified by the petitioner. 11. Having heard the respective Counsel, this Court opines as follows : Section 17 of the Registration Act contemplates the documents that are compulsorily registrable. The unregistered documents are prohibited from being received in evidence in view of Section 49(c) of the Registration Act. The proviso thereto provides an exception to a suit for specific performance or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument. Section 49 is extracted below : '49. Effect of non-registration of documents required to be registered.-No document required by Section 17 [or by any provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), to be registered shall-- (a) affect any immovable property comprised therein, or (b) confer any power to adopt, or (c) be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power, unless it has been registered : [Provided that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by this Act, or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter-II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 (3 of 1877) (or) as evidence of part performance of a contract for the purposes of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument.]' 12. The first part of the proviso is not relevant to this case as it relates to a suit for specific performance. The first part of the proviso is not relevant to this case as it relates to a suit for specific performance. The emphasized portion of the above proviso specifies that the unregistered document can be received as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument. The later part of the proviso contemplates a collateral transaction which is independent of the impugned document and the impugned document can be received in evidence to establish such collateral transaction. To reiterate, the unregistered document can be received in evidence to establish a collateral transaction which does not require registration. 13. In this case, nothing has been pointed out as to what is the collateral transaction that is sought to be established by receiving and marking the impugned document. A similar issue fell for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.B. Saha and Sons Private Limited v. Development Consultant Limited, (2008) 8 SCC 564 . After referring to various case law, it was held at Paragraph 34 as under: '34. From the principles laid down in the various decisions of this Court and the High Courts, as referred to hereinabove, it is evident that : 1. A document required to be registered, if unregistered is not admissible into evidence under Section 49 of the Registration Act. 2. Such unregistered document can however be used as an evidence of collateral purpose as provided in the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act. 3. A collateral transaction must be independent of, or divisible from, the transaction to effect which the law required registration. 4. A collateral transaction must be a transaction not itself required to be effected by a registered document, that is, a transaction creating, etc., any right, title or interest in immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards. 5. If a document is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration, none of its terms can be admitted in evidence and that to use a document for the purpose of proving an important clause would not be using it as a collateral purpose.' 14. The above principle explicitly makes it clear that the impugned document cannot be marked in evidence for want of collateral transaction. 15. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court and the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. The above principle explicitly makes it clear that the impugned document cannot be marked in evidence for want of collateral transaction. 15. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court and the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.