CRP/1972/2019 of Smt. Byroju Padma, Vs Pagidemuthal Uma, on 31 December 2025

ORDER:

This Civil Rewision Petition is hled under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the docket order dated 17 .06.2019 passed in O.S.No.1B of 2010 by the V Additiona,l District Judge (IIffiC), Warangal at Jangaon, which Court is now functioning as Principal District Judge, Jangaon.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners herein are defendant Nos.2 and 4 in the suit hled by the respondents/plaintiffs seeking partition and separate possession of the suit schedule house and agricultural properties into four shares and to allot 1/4tr' share to each plaintiff ald to pass a preliminXry and final decree by C

i appointing an Advocate Commissioner to effect J artition by metes and bounds.

3. Pending the said suit, the matter was posted for chief examination of PW-1 and marking of documents ,r r 17.06.20 19, the plaintiffs sought to mark a document dated 13.04. .99O, which is an unregistered document styled as a partition/ settie r rent copy. At that stage, the learned counsel for the defendants ri ised objection to marking of tJle said document and submitted r-remo along with citations contending that the said document i s an unregistered partition deed-cum-settlement deed, which is compuisorily registrable and cannot be received in evidence e .,en for collateral purpose artd that payment of stamp duty would lt )t cllre the defect under the Registration Act.

4. The learned Judge, after hearing both the learned counsel, passed the following order: "The document dated 13.04.1990 clearly shcr already partitioned il between Jagannadham and Shar per their possession, tire document/resolution pass3 elders ald it may not be compulsory registrable- It h:Lr stamp duty according with law. The objection raised b,r the defendants is over ruled. The document is impoun admrssible for evidence and it ca:r decided as adjudicati s that it was <araiah and as I by the caste been collected the counsel for .cd, hence it is n."

5. Being aggrieved by the said docket order dated 17'06'2019, the present civii Revision Petition is liled on the ground that the learned trial Court exercised jurisdiction in a manner unknorvn to law and failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it al-td failed to determine the jurisdictional fact as required under law and thereby committed a manife st jurisdictional error.

6. It is further averred that the learned trial Court did not consider the settled principles of law that an unregistered document which is compulsorily registrable, cannot be received in evidence, even for collateral purpose. It is further averred that the mere payment of stamp duty and penalty under Sections 40 ald 42 of tlre Indian Stamp Act, 1899, would not cure the defect under Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. It is further averred that the learned Judge failed to understand the arnbit, scope and purport of Section 35 of the Indial Stamp Act and Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, which operate in different fields. It is further averred that the expression "coilateral purpose" must be examined in each case and the impugned order ex-facie discloses non-application of mind and abdication of judicial function and is an unreasoned order and therefore i" #r.?tt in lau'. It is further averred that the r impugned order is unreasonable, unjust, unfair i nd irrational and per se illegal and passed without jurisdiction and herefore, liable to be set aside.

7. Heard Sri R.K.Chitta, iearned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri D.V.Chalapathi Rao, learne r cor-rnsel for the respondents.

8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners : document dated 13.04.199O is an unregister: wherein shares were allotted and rights were creal( requires compulsory registration. He further con though stamp duty and penalty were collected, tlL, make the document admissible in evidence ancl rntended that the I partition deed C and therefore it ended that even same w-ould not hat it cannot be looked into even for collateral purpose

9. He relied upon the judgment in K.B.Saha o nd Sons prlaate Limited as Deuelopment Consultant Limitecl. and Arshnoor Singh us Harpal Kaur and. Athersz and h<: so argued and contended that the learned Judge did not consider the same as the ' (2oo8) 8 scc s64 I (2020) 14 scc 436 i

I I i I i I i { l I t, I I i I i l lil l l l said document, which being an unregistered document, cannot be looked into for any purpose

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the document reflects a past partition and is intended to be marked only to show ancestra-l nature of property and not to claim partition on its basis and therefore, it can be looked into for collateral purpose and he relied upon the judgment cited in Guntupalli Venkata Ramaiah s/ o Pullaiah and Ors V/ s Guntupalli htrnachandra Rao s/ o Venkata Ramaiahs in Para 10 and 11 extracted as under: "Para 1O: In the tiSht of the above tests applicable to the documents in question, tJle two decisions relied on by Sri N. Sriram Murthy, learned Counsel for the respondent in G. Sarangapani v H Kanakaiah (Died) & Ors. (died), 1995 (2) ALT 617 a-nd Ghulam Jeelani v. Ghulam Sofr, 1996 (3) ALD 909 : 1996 (3) ALT 643, have to be understood as referring to inadmissibility of compulsorily registerable documents, obviously with reference to their in;dmissibility for the purpose of proving ttre transaction itself and cannot be considered to be excluding the admissibility of the d.ocuments for any collateral purpose, which limited admissibility is evident from t}-e express language of Section 49 of t1le Registration Act. While the two documents in question can be looked into for any purpose only on payment of required stanp duty and penalty in view of the absolute prohibition under Section 35 of Stamp Act, they can be looked into for a collateral purpose in spite of non- registration of the documents, if the starnp duty and penalty is paid. Para I 1: Therefore, the order in lA No. 7O1 of 2006 in OS No' 1598 of 2OO5 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, dated 5.1.2OO7 is set aside and it is declared that ttre documents dated 5.3.1993 in the nature of partition deeds are inadmissible in evidence for any purpose without payment of the requisite stamp duty ald penalty and will become admissible in 3 2010 Cl (AP) 1102

evidence for a col.lateral purpose on payment of sucl and penalty though unregistered and it is for th(. t determine on merits in accordalce with law whe r documents are being tendered into evidence for: purpose or otherwise at the stage of such tender all: required stamp duty and penalty. The civil revir;i I or-dered accordingly without costs.,, stamp duty ia-l Court to er the serid ry collateral payrnent of petition is and the judgment cited in Moduraboina Deepika I / s Kuna Sujatha Deuia atPara 4 and 12 " 12. In YELLUPU UMA MAHESHWARI, the vcrr issue was considered by the Supreme Court. tn the said c r: of the two relevairt documents, ftrst one was a deed of r rcmorandum evidencing earlicr partition affected between the part,e ; and second one was an agreement. Supreme Court held as under "17. It is well settled that the nomenclature lli!..n to the documcnt is not decisive factor but the n: ure and substance of the transaction has to be deterrr eed with reference to the terms of the documents alt( L that the admissibility of a document is entirely dependert upon the recitals contained in that document but not on th I tasis of the pleadings set up by the party who seeks t( ntroduce the document in question. A tJrorough readirr of both Exhibits B-2 I and B-22 makes it very clear th e there is relinquishment of right in respect of immovab ( properry through a document which is compulsorily r e fsteiable document and if the same is not registered, b: omes an inadmissible document as envisaged Under Se : on 49 of the Regrstration Act. Hence, Extribits B-21 at.r< t B-22 are the documents which squarely fall within th,r ambit ot Section 17(i)(b) of the Registration Act and I ence are compulsorily registerable documents and the izune are inadrnissible in evidence for tJ"e purpose of 1r rving the factum of partition between the parties. We

- : .c oT the considered opinion that Exhibits B 21 and B I ) a-re not admissible in evidence for the purpose of pro.r,i I j primary purpose of partition."

18. Then the next question that falls for consi: :ration is whether these can be used for any collateral pur >ose, and the larger Bench of Andhra pradesh Hi;h lourt in Chinnappa Reddy Gari Muthyala Reddy v. I rinnappa 4 2017 CJ(Hyderabad) 126

Reddy Gari Vankat Reddy MANU/AP/0141/ 1969 : AIR 1969 A.P. (242) has held that the whole process of partition contemplates three phases i.e. severancy of itatus, division ofjoint property by metes and bounds and nature of possession of various shares, artd tfrat in a suit for partition an unregistered document can be relied upon for a collateral purpose i.e. severancy of title ald nature of possession of various shares but not for the primary pu.pose i.e. division of joint properties by metes and bounds, further holdilg that an unstamped instrument is not admissible in evidence even for a collateral purpose until the sarne is impounded, and hence if the Appellants/ Defendants want to mark these documents for collateral purpose it is open tc them to pay the stamP duty together with penalty and get the document impounded, whereupon the Trial Court is at liberty to mark Exhibits B 2l and B-22 for collateral purpose subject to proof and relevance."

11. Wherein he argued and contended that the said document can be looked into for the collateral purpose arrd in the said judgment the Bench of this Court, having relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Full Bench (Five Judges) of this Court in Chinnappareddigari Pedda Muttgalareddg us. Chirunappareddigari Venkatreddg and otherss' wherein it was concluded in the said judgment that the said document which is in the nature of a partition deed cartnot be looked into unless it is registered, but it can be looked into for the purpose of establishing a severance in status, though that severance ultimately affects the nature of the possession held by the members of the separated fami$; and it is further held in the said judgment that where a document is b lhe nature of a partition deed, which is 5 1969 AR (Andhra Prad€sh) 2a2: 1969(1) An.WR 396 : 1969(1) ALr 375 : 1970 ILR (Andha Pradesh) 707 : 1969(1) APU 1

I

inadmissible in evidence for aly purpose wit requisite starnp duty and penalty, it will beco evidence for collateral purpose on payment o1' penalty, though it is an unregistered documenl. relied upon the judgment of the Hontrle Sr. Korukonda Chalapathi Rao & Another us. Kort,., Sampath Kumar6, wherein the question arose \ document styled as Khararunama, which was clair of alleged past transactions relating to part.i _r Supreme Court considered whether such Kharzu received in evidence, holding that where the dc,r record or memorandum of past transactions and create. declare, assign, limit or extinguish any rir propert5r, it would not attract Section 17(1)(b) of th< ald consequently would not be inadmissible unde: Registration Act, though it cannot be used as tralsaction itself, but only for permissible collate r as explaining the conduct of the parties anc possesslon Iout payment of ne admissible in stamp duty and Further, he a-Iso preme Court in '.onda Annapurna ith respect to a Led to be a record )n. The Hon'ble unama could be ument is only a loes not by itself ht in immovable Registration Act, Section 49 of the evidence of the Ll purposes such the nature of 6 CMI Appeal No(S),.6r41 or 2021

L2. Har.ing considered the rival contentions and on a perusal of the document dated 13.04.1990, it is seen that the said document contains division of house property, agricultural lands, allotment of specific shares, distribution of gold, silver, cash, agricultural implements and undertakings to abide by the division and also pena-l consequences. The document does not merely record a past partition. On the contral/, it itself effects and declares partition by metes and bounds. Therefore, the document squarely falls under Section 17(1Xb) of the Registration Act and is compulsorily registrable. It is well settled that payment of stamp duty and penalty cures only the defect under the Stamp Act and does not cure the defect of non-registration under the Registration Act. It is also well settled that collateral purpose must be independent of creation or declaration of rights in immovable property. If the collateral purpose itself involves proving title, partition or nature of ou'nership, the document cannot be looked into which is fortified by the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 34 extracted as under: "Para 34i 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 , s an evidence of collateral purpose as provided in the proviso to Scr jon 49 of the RegistraLion Act.

3. A collateral transaction must be independent of, o' livisible from, the tralsacLion to effect which the law required regis r rtion.

4. A collateral Lransaction must be a transaction. no, tself required to be effected by a registered docurnent, *rat is, r transaction creating, etc- any right, title or interest in immovable 1 roperty of the value of one hundred nrpees and upwards.

5. If a document is inadmissible in evidence for want , f registraLion, none of its terms can be adrnitted in evidence anc }rat to use a document for the purpose of proving al important clt rse would not be using it as a collatera-l purpose." In the present case, the respondents seek document to establish a.ncestrai nature of proper and allotment of shares, which directly affect ri;; property. The iearned trial Court failed t,l jurisdictional fact and mechanically admitted the r the ground that stamp duty was collected.

13. This Court oplnes that the learned Judge hru appa-rently on the face of the record by admitting t into evidence, on the ground of taking it for the : which is without arry substance and the same ,I aside. to rely upon the y, prior partition rts in immovable determine the ocument only on committed error re said document rllateral pulpose, )serves to be set 13, Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is I lowed by setting aside the docket order dated 17.06.2019 passerl in O.S.No. 18 of

2010 by the Vth-Additional District Judge (ilFTC), Warangal at Jangaon, which Court is now functioning as Principal District Judge, Jangaon. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. SD/- A. SREENIVASA REDDY A SISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. The V Additional District Judge (ll FfC), Warangal at Jangaoan

2. One CC to Sri R. K. Chitta, Advocate [OPUC]

3. One CC to Sri D. V. Chalapathi Rao, Advocate [OpUC]

4. Two CD Copies VIVPSL o\ To,

I HIGH COURT DATED: 3111212025

ORDER

CRP.No.1972 of 2019 ALLOWING THE CRP I ,.fij:; ,1,'.r _/ ' -r\ ,.' 2 r EB 2028 * a .;;l/ yl, '.., i