Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2026 DIGILAW 122 (TS)

K. Anjaiah v. M. A. Shankar

2026-01-21

NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

body2026
ORDER : NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J. This Civil Revision Petition No.5937 of 2016 is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the Order dated 09.11.2016 in dismissal of I.A.No.882 of 2016 in O.S.No.1015 of 2010 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar. 2. This Civil Revision Petition No.5941 of 2016 is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the Order dated 09.11.2016 in allowing I.A.No.454 of 2016 in O.S.No.1015 of 2010 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, to summon the officials i.e., Secretary, Gram Panchayat of Rampally Village, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District to appear with relevant Grampanchayat records pertaining to Laxminagar Colony situated in Sy.Nos.381, 382, 383, 384 and 387 at Rampally Village, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and Tahsildar of Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District to appear with revenue records pertaining to the lands mentioned above to produce evidence. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as, as they are arrayed before the Trial Court. 4. The brief facts in C.R.P.No.5937 of 2016 are that the respondents/plaintiffs herein filed a suit for perpetual injunction against the respondents/defendants therein in respect of the suit schedule property. During the pendency of the suit, it appears that the plaintiff relied upon and got marked through PW1, as Ex.A-10 was a Xerox copy and it was a created one, there is a burden of proof on the plaintiff to prove the document according to the Right to Information Act (RTI Act), 2005, which is said to have submitted a report by Tahsildar Keesara to the District Collector in respect of personal inspection relating to the land. Being aggrieved by the said markings of the said documents, the present revision is filed contending that Ex.A-10 was a Xerox copy and the same is not admissible evidence filed by the PW1 and the trial Court has dismissed the petition under Order XIII Rule 3 r/w Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code was being illegal and that Xerox copy of the document being inadmissible in evidence and the finding of the learned trial Court ought to have decided immediately and cannot be postponed and inadmissible documents can be rejected at any time. Further, prayed to allow the application i.e., I.A.No.882 of 2016. 5. Further, prayed to allow the application i.e., I.A.No.882 of 2016. 5. Heard Sri B.Sathish , learned counsel representing Sri Thoom Srinivas , learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Rajan Sri Krishnan , Sri B. Srinivasulu and Sri R. Prasad learned counsel appearing for respondents. Perused the entire material on record. 6. Admittedly, the said document which is marked as Ex.A-10 was a Xerox copy, though the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the said document can be obtained under RTI Act and the same cannot be marked. Learned trial Court ought to have considered that the document which is marked was submitted by the Tahsildar Keesara to the District Collector in respect of the personal inspection which is conducted relating to the suit schedule property. Admittedly, the said document being only the Xerox copy and there is a dispute raised regarding the contents of the documents which are created by PW1, is a scribe of the said document. Unless and until the same in confronted to the concerned, the same cannot be treated into evidence. Further, in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Yeluvolu Blessy Sheeba v/s. Amgoth Anitha Nayak , C.R.P.No.1769 of 2023 , wherein held that: “The learned counsel for the respondent- defendant placed reliance on the judgment of the combined High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana in Syed Yousuf Ali v. Mohd.Yousuf and Others , wherein also it was contended that when a document is admitted and marked as exhibit, it could not be questioned except under Section 61 in view of interdict contained under Section 36 of Indian Stamp Act, it was held that: 16. No doubt, Section 36 of the Act created an interdict to raise an objection about admissibility of document, once admitted, except under Section 61, it is the duty of the Court to apply its mind about the admissibility and determine judicially but the Presiding Officer failed to look into the admissibility of the document for want of stamp duty and penalty. Putting signature on the stamp of marking on the document cannot be considered as admission of a document in evidence. Putting signature on the stamp of marking on the document cannot be considered as admission of a document in evidence. When similar issue came up before Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.29434 of 2013, dated 12.02.2014, placing reliance on judgment of Apex Court in R.V.E.Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami [ AIR 2003 SC 4548 ] and V.P.Temple and another and Ram Rattan (dead) by legal representatives v. Bajranlal and others [ AIR 1978 SC 1393 ] drawn distinction between admitting in evidence and marking of document. Marking of a document is only for convenient reference, whereas, admitting document is taking the document as evidence after applying judicial mind. In view of principle laid down in R.V.E.Venkatachala Gounders case [ AIR 2003 SC 4548 ] and Ram Rattan (dead) by LRs case [ AIR 1978 SC 1393 ], the parties can raise objection as to admissibility of document and mere marking of document for convenience of reference would not preclude the parties to raise objection as to the admissibility. In R.V.E.Venkatachala Gounders case [ AIR 2003 SC 4548 ], the Apex Court is of the view that merely because a document is marked as exhibit an objection as to its admissibility is not excluded and is available to be raised even at a later stage or even in appeal or revision. Similarly in Ram Rattan’s case [ AIR 1978 SC 1393 ], the Supreme Court is of the view that when the document was tendered in evidence by the plaintiff while in witness box, objection has been raised by the defendants that the document was inadmissible in evidence as it was not only insufficiently stamped, but also for want of registration, it was obligatory upon the learned trial judge to apply his mind to the objection raised and decide the objection in accordance with law. Tendency sometimes is to postpone the decision to avoid interruption in the process of recording evidence and therefore, a very convenient device is resorted to, of marking the document in evidence subject to objection. However, would not mean that the objection as to admissibility on the ground that the instrument is not duly stamped is judicially decided; it is merely postponed. In such a situation at a later stage before the suit is finally disposed of it would none-the-less be obligatory upon the Court to decide the objection. However, would not mean that the objection as to admissibility on the ground that the instrument is not duly stamped is judicially decided; it is merely postponed. In such a situation at a later stage before the suit is finally disposed of it would none-the-less be obligatory upon the Court to decide the objection. The endorsement made by the learned trial Judge that objected, allowed subject to objection, clearly indicates that when the objection was raised, it was not judicially determined and the document was tentatively marked and in such a situation, Section 36 would not attract. Though facts are different, the law laid down by the Courts time and again is that to admit a document in evidence the Court has to apply its mind and decide the admissibility of document in evidence, judicially, mere marking for convenience of reference itself would not amount to admitting the document by applying judicial mind and it is not a judicial determination as to the admissibility of document in evidence. Section 35 created clear embargo against acting upon insufficiently stamped document for any purpose. Any purpose would include collateral purpose. Even if both parties gave consent for marking insufficiently stamped document, it shall not be act upon, more particularly to enforce the right of parties under contract of sale, unless it falls under any clauses of proviso. The present document does not fall within any of the clauses of proviso to Section 35of the Act, when document shall not be acted upon admitting the same by consent would mean that it is the duty of the Court to decide admissibility of document in evidence judicially. 17. In such situation, the bar under Section 36 of the Act would not come in the way of the parties to raise an objection as to the admissibility of the document. In the present case except affixing stamp giving numerical number to the possessory contract of sale as Ex.A.1, signing thereon by officer, nothing discloses about the judicial determination of admissibility of possessory contract of sale. The provisions of Stamp Act are fiscal in nature and such provisions have to be construed strictly, at the same time, it is the duty of the office to decide or determine judicially about admissibility of the document, irrespective of objection to avoid loss of revenue to the State. The provisions of Stamp Act are fiscal in nature and such provisions have to be construed strictly, at the same time, it is the duty of the office to decide or determine judicially about admissibility of the document, irrespective of objection to avoid loss of revenue to the State. In the absence of any judicial determination about admissibility of the document, the same can be questioned at a later stage though stamp is affixed marking the document as exhibit. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh (United) in Syed Yousuf Ali’s Case (cited supra) also held that: 21. When the documents were marked as exhibits in the absence of defendant or his counsel and without considering the nature of the document by the Court, assigning exhibit number cannot be said to be admitted in evidence and interdict contained in Section 36 would not come to the aid of the party in whose evidence the document was marked as exhibit without any judicial determination, totally debarring the adversary to challenge the admissibility of document in evidence. In Vemireddy Kota Reddy’s Case [2004(3)ALD 187], single Judge of this Court relied on Javer Chand and others v. Pukhraj Surana to conclude that marking of a document is assigning exhibit number without judicial determination would not amount to admitting document in evidence and such objection can be raised at later point of time. Whereas, learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance in T.Nagaratnam’s case [ 2006 (3) ALD 838 ], so also M.Narasimhulu’s case [1996 Law Suit (AP) 447] and Isra Fatima’s case [2002 Law Suit 832]. In all the three judgments, the single Judges of this Court decided the bar contained under Section 36 of Indian Stamp Act holding that until and unless there is a judicial determination it cannot be said that it has been admitted in evidence though it is marked. Mere marking of document itself is not sufficient and there should be judicial determination as to the nature of document and its admissibility. Further the words admitted in evidence appearing under Section 36 of the Act means admitted after judicial consideration of objections relating to admissibility. In the absence of judicial determination marking of document mechanically is an illegality. Even otherwise at any stage of the suit, the Court may reject any document which it considers irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible in view of Order 13 Rule 3 CPC. 24. In the absence of judicial determination marking of document mechanically is an illegality. Even otherwise at any stage of the suit, the Court may reject any document which it considers irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible in view of Order 13 Rule 3 CPC. 24. According to Order13 Rule 3 CPC the Court may at any stage of the suit, reject any document which it considers irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible, recording the grounds for such rejection. Order 13 Rule 4 CPC prescribes an endorsement to be made on the document when a document is admitted in evidence. According to it, there shall be an endorsement on every document which has been admitted in evidence containing number and title of the suit, the name of the person producing the document, the date on which it was produced and a statement of its having been so admitted and the endorsement shall be signed or initialled by the Judge. 25. Here there is an endorsement on the reverse of possessory contract of sale consisting the details under Order 13 Rule 4(1)(A) to (C), 1(D) is absent. Therefore, the document cannot be said to be admitted after judicial determination, in such a case, exercising power under Order 13 Rule 3 CPC, the Court can reject any document which it considers irrelevant or in- admissible, recording reasons. 7. This Court is of the view that the learned trial Court ought not to have marked Ex.A-10. In view of the provisions of the Order XIII Rule 3 of C.P.C, the Court empowering which is marked mistakenly or which should not be marked and been marked can be de-exhibited. 8. This Court deems it fit and proper that C.R.P.No.5937 of 2016 can be allowed setting aside the order passed by the learned trial Court by allowing the application i.e., I.A.No.882 of 2016 and thereby de-exhibiting the Ex.A-10. 9. In respect of C.R.P.No.5941, on perusal of the order passed by the learned trial Court and the reasons cited by the petitioner in allowing the application i.e., I.A.No.454 of 2016 to summon the officials i.e., Secretary, Gram Panchayat of Rampally Village, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District are the appropriate persons to appear with relevant Grampanchayat records pertaining to Laxminagar Colony has denied by the trial Court. However, it is an admitted fact that the said documents or report which was submitted by the Tahsildar Keesara to the District Collector, as such he being the one who inspected, as submitted the report, he is proper person to speak about the documents as to produce the same and the same can be marked, as he being the author of the documents, as such this Court could not find any error committed by the trial Court in summoning the said officials to confront the said document i.e., inspection report of the Tahsildar and the layouts which is said to have been existing in Laxmi Nagar Colony. Hence, this Court could not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned trial Court. 10. Accordingly, the C.R.P.No.5941 of 2016 is dismissed and C.R.P.No.5937 of 2016 is allowed setting aside the order passed by the learned trial Court and de-exhibiting Ex.A-10 and granting liberty to the petitioner to confront the said document to the concerned Tahsildar and get the same marked through the same Tahsildar. As the suit is pertaining to the year 2010, learned trial Court is directed to dispose the suit as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournments not beyond one week and both the parties shall co-operate with the trial Court in disposal of the same. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.