Civil Revision Petition No. 388 of 2017. Case: Moduraboina Deepika Vs Kuna Sujatha Devi and Ors.. High Court of Andhra Pradesh (India)

Case NumberCivil Revision Petition No. 388 of 2017
CounselFor Appellant: J. Venkateshwar Reddy, Adv.
JudgesP. Naveen Rao, J.
IssueIndian Stamp Act, 1899 - Section 35; Registration Act, 1908 - Sections 17(1)(b), 49
Judgement DateFebruary 28, 2017
CourtHigh Court of Andhra Pradesh (India)


P. Naveen Rao, J.

  1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner Sri J Venkateswara Reddy and learned counsel for second respondent Sri M Rama Krishna.

  2. Petitioner (plaintiff) instituted O.S No. 924 of 2012 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge at Warangal praying to grant declaration of title and delivery of possession. At the stage of defendants' evidence, defendants sought to mark document dated 17.10.1985 (Ex. B9) and document dated 7.12.1992 (no document number is shown) which is a map disclosing share of the property. Plaintiff raised objection on admissibility of those two documents. It was contended that said documents are not properly stamped and cannot be admitted in evidence even for collateral purpose as per Section 49 of the Registration Act.

  3. On the contrary, the defendants contended that document dated 17.10.1985 is only an agreement executed on the same day of registered sale deed indicating respective shares in the property purchased by them and that it need not compulsorily be registered. It was further contended that document dated 7.12.1992 is only a map disclosing share of the property.

  4. The Court below over ruled the objection of petitioner against both documents. The Court below held that no new rights are created or extinguished under document dated 17.10.1985 and it should be taken as an agreement apportioning the share of property already purchased under registered sale deed document No. 2132/1985 dated 17.10.1985 and it can be received in evidence after it is impounded as per provisions of Section 35 of Indian Stamp Act. On document dated 7.12.1992, the Court below held that said document is only a map disclosing the share of property of plaintiff and it is not liable for stamp duty and does not require registration.

  5. Aggrieved by the said order, plaintiff preferred this revision.

    6.1 Learned counsel for petitioner Sri Venkateshwar Reddy contended that documents dated 17.10.1985 and 7.12.1992 are unregistered documents and cannot be admitted in evidence. Both documents reflect partition of suit schedule property. A deed of partition is compulsorily registrable under Section 17(1)(b) of Indian Registration Act, 1908 and unregistered documents are not admissible in evidence. Document dated 17.10.1985 is an agreement and as on the date of its execution plaintiff was minor and the said document is void.

    6.2. It is contended that both documents are not admissible in evidence even for collateral purposes as they are not registered.

    6.3. Sri Venkateswar Reddy contended that Court below grossly erred in not appreciating that in both documents what is shown is apportionment of respective shares and therefore are partition deeds.

    6.4. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on decision of this Court in RACHAKONDA RAMAKOTESHWARA RAO v. MANOHAR FUEL...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT