Deepika v. Kuna Sujatha Devit, wherein, it is held that an unregistered partition deed canno

Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. K JAGADISHWAR REDI) /, Advocate Counsel for the Respondent No.1:Mr. K MADHUSUDHAN Rt DDy, Advocate Counsel for the Respondent No.2: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE COURT FOR THE STATE OI. TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA CIVIL REVISION PETITI,ON NO.245 of 2o24 IsTH DAY OF DECEM BER, 2025 Between: K. Laxman and another Petitioners / respondcr.rts/ plaintiffs K. Kishanji and another Responden ts / pe titioners / defendan ts ORDER:

1. Heard Mr. K. Jagadishwar Reddy, learned counsel lor the petitioners/respondents/praintiffs and Mr. K. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.1/petittoner No. 1/ defendant/No. 1. perused the record.

2. This Civil Revision petirion is filed aggrieved by the Order dated 03.O4.2023 in I.A.No. t3Z of 2023 in O.S.No.447 of 2013 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar (for short .the Trial Court,), wherein, a petition filed under Section 4Z of Indian Stamps Act r/w , Section 151 of CPC to send a document to the DistrL, t Registrar for impounding, has been aliowed 3 The brief facts of the case are that the ,etitioners/ plaintiffs filed a suit for perpetual injunction i gainst the respondents herein to restrain them from causing nterference u,ith the peaceful possession and enjoyment r f the suit schedule propert\, consisting of land in Sy.Nos. I >. >, 127 and 128 admeasuring r\c.6.03 Gts., knorvn as Baltoon, . iowly, Sivar N{ouza, l(ongara Khurd (A), I\{aheshwaram Mar dal, Ranga Reddl, District. Further, during trial, there was a need for marking an unregistered Partition Deed, dated 10.,1.2C00. The said document s'as produced by the respondents /defendzrnts stating that there was a partition and an unregist: ed Partition Deed, dated 10.05.2000 was executed on a lt; lOO/- Non- Judicial stamp paper. Said Document was execr Led betu,een father ol petitioners herein and respondent No. herein i.e defendant No.1 . [.-or the purpose of impounding Lnd to mark the same as an Exhibit, the documerlt was sough: Lo be sent to the Dr'strict Registrar, Ranga R-eddy District. Herr e, a Lretition rvas fii ed under Section 4? of Indian S+-amp Act 3

4. The revision petitioners/plaintiffs filed counter opposing the petition denying the averments of the petitioner about the unregistered Partition Deed (Vibaga Patram) dated 1O.05.2000 According to the revision petitioners/ plaintiffs, the unregistered Partition Deed is a fake ald crcated document. There r.vas never a Partition Deed executed between the parties and Rs. 100/- Non-judicial stamp paper was purchased in the name ol one Dayanand S/o. Balaji and to u,hom, it is rvritten as Kishanji, but later the name was a-ltered to trshivarj i and therelore the Non-judicial stamp paper is invalid. The created document date is shown as 10.05.2000. However, the date on the signature of Eswarji is shown as 1 1.08.2000 and therefore, the document is inv.alid. Further, in paraglaphs 3 and 4 of the affidavit, the Partition Deed date is mentioned as 20.O5.200O, but the document date is 10.05.2000 and the date mentioned at the signature is 1 1.05.2000. Since there are three different dates on the Unregistered Partition Deed, said document is invalid in the eye of law. Therefore, the revision petitioners have sought dismissal of the Interlocutory Application.

5. The learned Trial Court upon considering the case of boththe parties has held that the document is not sufficiently 4 stamped and therefore the same cannot be receir.r:, in evidence. It is furthcr held that for the purpose of receivin5q : re document, said clocumenr has to be impounded as recltr stecl by the respondents herein and therefore there is a ne(,,. for sending the documcr-rt ro District Registr.ar- for impoundine The del'ence raised b1, the respondents i.e., about the unregist:recl partition Deed being a fake clocument or- forged document in the eye of law cannot be considered in an Interlocutory 1, rplication. As such, the document was ordered to be sent for i epounding to the District Registrar as no prejudice t ould be aused to the revision petitioners. Aggrieved by said Order, the present Civi! Revision petition is preferred.

6. In grounds of revision, it is pleaded that t re Trial Court did not consider the admissibilit-v of the docnmer t as the same is fablicated and not registered under. Section 17 f Registration Act. It is pleadcd that the Trial Court did not co: sider the case of revision petitioners that the unregistered parli ion Deed was created after the death of the father of revis;r n petitioners. A relerence is made to order in the case of I ladurabohina I I i I 5 Deepika v. Kuna Sujatha Devit, wherein, it is held that an unregistered partition deed cannot be admitted in evidence cven for collateral purpose. Though the Trial Court came to a conclusion that an unregistered Partition Deed cannot be exhibited, the documenl- was sent to District Register lor impounding and such an act is erroneous, as such, prayed that the impugned ordcr be set aside.

7. During arguments, the learned counsel for revision petitioners/plaintiffs relied upon order of High Court of Judicature, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in the case of B. Balreddy v. B. Ram Reddy and othersz, '*,herein, it is held that in a suit for perpetual injunction, u'hen a document is sought to be exhibited which is unregistered, for the principal purpose of proving possession and not lor collateral purpose, there is a manifest error committed by sending the document for impounding. When a document is meant for impounding for proving the main purpose of possession and title, in case said document is unregistered, 'z 20t6 (2) ALD 435 1:; nro t 6 such a documcnL cannot be admitted and its pr tbative value can be decided ar the time of trial. B. Furthcr, learncd counsci lor the revis, n petitioners placed relance on ordcr of High Court of Judicat_ -e, Telangana ar-rd Andhra Pradesh at Hr,derabad in t1e case of Madurabohina Deepika (l supra), wherein, it ir; held that the sa-le deed dated 17.10.1985 and agreement dat,: I 17.10. l9BS, which are meant to shorv partition cannot ,r I received in evidence as sard documents are unregistered ar r inaclmissible and said documents are not meant for prc r ing collateral purpose but thc main purpose is of exact divisicr of sharcs i.e. three equal par-ts.

9. From the aforementioned citations, the ir rportarrt point to be noted is that an unregistered clocument, a 1:r the sarne is impounded, can be admitted and considered lor proving a collateral pul'pose but not the main purpose. I:t Maduraboina Deepika's case (1 supra), it is clcarly inclicatec at paragraph No.12 that an unregisterecl instrument a_fte.. the same is impcrflnded, q,hen the document is a partitiorr deed, can be relied upon to prove collateral purpose of ser r rance of title, I 7 nature of possession of various shares but not for the primary purpose of division of loint family properties by metes and bounds. To said extent, an unregistered document i.e. a partition deed cal be received in evidence, aJter the same is impounded, as required under Stamp Act.

10. 'Ihe learned counsel for respondent No.1/defendant No.1 relied upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Yellapu Uma Maheswari and another v. Buddha Jagadheeswara Roo and others3, wherein, it is held that if a pa-rty walts tc mark the document for collatera_l purpose, it is open for them to pay stamp duty together with penalty. He further relied upon judgment of Hon,ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Javer Chand v. pukhraj Suranaa, wherein, it is held that when a document is produced before a court for admission, the court has to judicially determine the matter before it is marked as an Exhibit in the case. Once a document has been admitted in evidence, it is not open either to the trial Court or to the Court of Appeat or Division to go behind that order. This judgment is not applicable to the 3 ZOr5 LawSuit (SC) 9ge ' 1961 Lawsuit (SC) 201 8 t present case since the document is not yet admitr,: I and not yet exhibited in evidence. Further, in the case of Prabhu and others v. Shanta and otherss, the High Court ,i Karnataka held that if an unregistered document is br.l -rght up for marking during the course of evidence, only a1t:. payment of stamp duty and penalty upon impoundment the c:cument can be markcd in evidence. Lastly, in Chinnappareddigari Pedda Muthyalar -'ddy v. Chinnapareddigari Venkatareddy and others6, .l e High Court of Andhra Pradesh (F B.) has held that ar unregistered tlr: case of partition deed comprising of Exhibits B- I 8 and l- 19 and the othcr counterpart though inadmissible in evider , e for vrant of registration, can be iooked into lor establishirrrl severance in status. 1 1. A perusal of the o rders/judgments reliec upon by the learned counsel lor revision petilioners and the l: rrnecl corlnsel for respondent No. 1 shou' that firstty an unregislr -ed doctrment which requires rcgistration Under Section 17 of ll e Regrstration Act, cannot be admitted in evidence_ Further, as rer. Secticrn 45 s vp.lfftltoztlzozz 9 i l of the Registration Act, any document rvhich is unregistered can be impounded by paying requisite stamp duty and penalty and thereafter, said document carr be admitted in evidence for considering the same fr-rr collateral purpose. To this extent, there is no dichotomy betrveen the stand taken by both the learned counsels.

12. Coming to the case at hand, the question is whether the unregistered partition deed wLrich is marked on Rs.l0O/-Non- judicial stamp paper can be setrt for impounding to exhibit the same in support of case of defendants i.e. the respondents herein. The Trial Court did not give any reasoning as to whether the document is permitted to be impounded for considering the collateral purpose or the main purpose. However, the document relied upon by the respondents clearly indicates that the unregistered Partition Deed is sought to be impounded for considering the collateral purpose of establishing the severance of status between the revision petitioners and the respondents by way of partition way back in the year 2000, but not for the main purpose of proving partition through metes and bounds. Such being the case, there should be no objection for the \.re\sron petitioners to send the document for impounding for 7 :: l0:: the purpose of admitting and exhibiting the sarrr on behatf of the respondcnts. Though, an unrcg.istered do<:Lr lent i,e. the Partition Deed can alq,ays be consiclered fot proving the collateral purpose of se'erance or status arnonn the revision petitioners and the respondents.

13. Further, u'ith respect to defence rais: I about the unregistered Partition Deed bcing a fabricated dr --ument, said issue cannot bc decided in the enquiry during ilt intetlocutory proceeding and has to be considered only aftr.r r full_fleCged trial, a-fter evider-rce is led by both the parties i.rr to prove the genuineness of the partitlon deed or to prove fa I r Lr:ation of the same b1' the rival parties.

14. In the Interlocutor)., Application rvhich is I rder revision, the only point to be considered is u,hether th: unregistered Partition Deed dated 10.05.2000 can be sent f,r impourrding and the salne was orderecl by tl-re Trial Court. TL is Court sees no inlirmity in the order passed by the Trial C: -rrt. As such, there are no grounds to interfere with the impu51 ed order and the Civil Prevention petition is liable to be dismisr;, d. t / :: I l::

15. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the Order dated 03.04.2023 in I.A.No.137 of 2023 in O.S.No.447 of 2013 passed by the II Additionai District Judge, Ranga Reddrv District at L.B.Nagar' Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. No costs. Sd/- A.H.S.G OWRI SHANKAR SI TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To The ll Additional District Judge at Rangareddy District at L B Nagar' One CC to Mr. K JAGADISHWAR REDDY' Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Mr. K MADHUSUDHAN REDDY' Advocate [OPUCI I 2 L

4. Two CD CoPies Rc/Pr 0 I I t Srerc G ( .s i.8 7n1c ?i lr* ''*-9i::rg:>' It) .[]r) ,/ HIGH COURT DATED: 1511212025 ORDER CRP.No.245 of 2024 Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is Dismissed % 0 0