Telangana High Court
CRP/5349/2010 of Smt.Velga Ahalyamma Vs Velga Pulla Reddy on 31 December 2010
G.BHAVANI PRASAD C.R.P.No.5349 of 2010 31ST DCEMBER 2010 Between:- Smt.Velga Ahalyamma and another .. Petitioners And Velga Pulla Reddy .. Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD C.R.P.No.5349 of 2010 ORDER:- The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order in
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD
C.R.P.No.5349 of 2010
Between:-
ST31 DCEMBER 2010
Smt.Velga Ahalyamma and another .. Petitioners
And
Velga Pulla Reddy .. Respondent
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASADC.R.P.No.5349 of 2010
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:-
The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order inO.S.No.116 of 2004 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Ramannapet,dated 13-9-2010, by which the Trial Court held that a document dated16-4-1974 cannot be marked. The document was attempted to betendered into evidence through P.W.2 by the learned Counsel for theplaintiff before the Trial Court which was objected to by the learnedCounsel for the defendant before the Trial Court. The Trial Courtopined that an unregistered document cannot be admitted in evidenceas per Section 49 of the Registration Act except for collateral purposebut when the document itself is said to be the suit document, the TrialCourt felt that it cannot be marked even for a collateral purpose.
Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff is before this Court.
Smt. L.Shiva Kalpana Reddy, the learned Counsel for the revisionpetitioner and Sri Rajagopallavan Tayi, the learned Counsel for therespondent are heard.
The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner has placed beforethe Court for perusal the order passed by the Revenue DivisionalOfficer, Bhongir, on 5-3-2003 impounding the document in questiondirecting the payment of Rs.100/- towards stamp duty and Rs.500/-towards penalty and the learned Counsel for the plaintiff submits thataccordingly the Stamp Duty and Penalty were paid. On payment ofStamp Duty and Penalty, notwithstanding that the document was notsufficiently stamped originally, any prohibition under the Stamp Actagainst admission of such document into evidence does not arise.
The revision petitioner who claimed to have brought the paymentof stamp duty and penalty to the notice of the Trial Court claims that thesale deed dated 16-4-1974, though unregistered, is sought to beadmitted into evidence only to show the nature of possession. Theprohibition against admission of an unregistered document intoevidence under Section 49 of the Registration Act is not absolute, asunder the Stamp Act and a document can be admitted into evidence,though unregistered in spite of being compulsorily registerable, for acollateral purpose. The suit is one for permanent injunction and thedocument is claimed to be produced in evidence to show the nature ofthe possession of the plaintiff over the property which cannot be claimed to be a primary purpose in such a suit. The contention has allthe force to be considered favourably and how it becomesinadmissible even for a collateral purpose is unintelligible.
Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the documentdated 16-4-1974 on which stamp duty and penalty have already beenpaid shall be permitted to be tendered into evidence by the Trial Courtfor a collateral purpose, of course, in accordance with the procedureprescribed by law in that regard.
The Civil Revision Petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.
31[st] December,2010smr
________________________G.Bhavani Prasad,J