The High Court · 2025

...RespondenUPlaintiff lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in OS.No.1040 of 2019 on the file of V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, pending disposal of the above CRP, in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. M.A.K. Mukheed Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Mohammed Abdul Quadeer The Court made the following: ORDER , IN TTTE COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE TIONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUI(A YARA CnryL REVISION PETITOIN NO.1286 of 2o25 1sth OF 202s Between: Sri Mohamrned Akram, Hyderabad Sri Moham.ned Majeed, Hyderabad. And . Petitioner/ defendant . . . Respondent/ plaintiff ABDER:

1. Heard Mr. M.A.K. Mukheed, learned counsel for the petitioner/ cefendant and Mr. Mohammed Abdul euadeer, learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff. -perused the record.

2. This Civil Revision petition is filed by petitioner/defendant aggrieved by the order passed by the learned V senior civil Judge, city civil court, Hyderabad, in I.A. No. 53 of 2024 in o.S. No. 1040 of 2019 dated o6.02.2o2s, wherein a petition filed by the respondent/plaintiff under Sections 33 and 35 of the stamp Act, LBgg, to send the original I ?\,\ t :3 RY,J cRP_l286_2025 with English translation. On account of the objection taken by the trial Court, the respondent has filed the petition under Sections 33 and 35 of Indian Stamp Act, 1899, to send said original sale deed receipt dated 11.O7.L975 to the District Registrar, Hyderabad, for impounding

4. The revision petitioner filed counter-affidavit alleging that the original sale deed receipt dated 1L.O7.1975 is a fraudulent document, not an original document, created through a photocopy germinated from the registered sale deed of the revision petitioner's mother-in-law uide Document No. 2638 of lg75 dated Og.O7.lg75. Further, the signatures purported to be made on the original sale deed receipt dated LL.O7.1975 are forged signatures. A photocopy is prepared on an old paper which is not having any stamp and the signatures are forged. In that context, learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Hari Om Agarwq.l a. Praka,sho;n Nlalauigol', wherein, it is held that photocopy of the agreement original of which is lost cannot be admitted in evidence. Further, it is held that a copy of a document, original of which is not duly stamped and lost, ' (zoozl8 scc 514 \ \-- i.- - cnp-tzao_fJi{ 4 cannot be impounded and cannot be admitted as evidence under Indian Stamp Act, 1899. . By relying upon the a''orementioned judgment, the revisi<ln petitioner opposed the se:n6[ipg of the alleged document for impounding. 5' The triar court, after considering the stand taken by both the parties i'e', the respondent seeking the document to be sent to District Registrar, Hyderabad, for impounding for better adiudication of the case and the respondent opposing the same, herd that the document can be sent for impounding to the District Registrar' Hyderabad, as every opportunity shourd be givr:n to the respondent who has fired the suit seeking decraration of titre and that objections regarding admissib,ity or rerevancy can be examined at a later stage. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision petition is filed. 6' In grounds of revision, the revision petitioner preaded that the document dated 11.o7.1975 is got prepared and the signrttures on said document are prepared and forged, the said the clocument does not contain any stamp and in spite of the same the trial court allowed the petition to be impounded. Further, it is pleaded that the nronFrrrr t,,L-._r . --- LrrqL urre property which rs subject matter ,! I l , l( a - f, RY,J cRP_1286_202s of the document to be impounded belongs to the revision petitioner's mother-in-law namel,v Fathima.B as she purchased the property under registered sale deed by Document No. 2638 of 1975 dated 09.O7.1975. Thereafter, the documents sought to be impounded has been forged and created. It is clear that forged and fabricated documents cannot be legalized by ignoring established principles of law. As such, the revision petitioner prayed that the impugned ord.er be set asid.e.

7. A perusal of the pleadings of the respondent show that he is claiming the document sought to be impounded to be an original sale deed receipt dated 1L.O7.L975. Since it is an original document, the respondent filed the petition under revision to send the document for impounding to the District Registrar, Hyderabad. Whereas, the 'revision petitioner is claiming said original sale deed receipt dated 11.07.1975 as a fabricated and forged document and also a document which is not original. According to the revision petitioner, the original sale deed receipt dated 11.O7.1975 is a photocopy generated from the registered sale deed of the revision petitioner's mother- in-law uid.e document No. 2638 of 1975 dated O9.O7.1975. An \ ,\ 6 RY.J CRp j2B6 2ois origin.l document which is an instrument as per Sect ion 2 (r4) of the Indian Stamp Act, tggg, can be impounded. A receipt qualifi':s to be an instrument as per section 14 ofthe Indian Stamp Act, 1ggg. As f,ar as nature of the document in the present case is considered, the same can be impounded as it is quarifies to be termed as an instrument as per the definition in Sectior: 2(14) of Indian Stamp Act, 1 Bgg. 8' '[he next question is whether said original sale deed receipt is an originar document or a photocopy. The respondent is clainring said document to be an original document and therefo.e, prayed for its impounding. whereas, the revision petitioner is claiming the said document to be a photocopy generatt:d from the registered sare deed document No. 263g of 7975 deLted og.o7.1g75. In that context, the contention of the respondent is that in case the document dated 1r.o7.1g75 is an origirar, the impression of the handwriting must be legibre on the back side of the paper- Further, the signature must arso be embossed on the back side of the paper if any party signs on the pape:r. However, these two aspects are not considered by the trial rlourt. l RY,J cRP_l286_2025

9. When the contention of the revision petitioner about the original sale deed dated L1.O7.1975 being a photocopy is considered, it is seen that the original has to be examined to ascertain whether the same is a original or a photocopy. In the Interlocutory proceedings, the trial Court cannot take up such an exerclse Only after a full-fledged trial, the genuineness and admissibility of the sale deed receipt dated 1 1.07.1975 can be decided. At this stage, believing the version of the respondent who has filed the suit for declaration of title, sufficient opportunity need to be given as was observed by the trial Court. Similarly, sufficient opportunity would be available to the revision petitioner to prove that the original sale deed receipt dated 11.07.1975 is a forged and fabricated document and a photocopy but not original, while leading the defendants' evidence.

10. The factual issue of whether or not the original sale deed receipt dated 11.O7. 1975 is genuine or not cannot be decided within the framework of the interlocutory application filed seeking impounding. In any case, the trial Court allowed the petition subject to examination of the objections taken to be i, !. I I 8 RY,J cRP_1 286_2025 considered at a later stage as to admissibility and relevancy. In the circumstances, this court does not see any infirmity in the order passed by the trial court and there are no merits in the Civil Division petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 1 1. ltccordingly, the civil Revision petition is Dismissed. There shall be nor order as to costs. I)ending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/. P.C. SULEKHA DEVI REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, at 2. One CC to Mr. tVl.A.K. Mukheed, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Mr. lvlohammed Abdul Quadeer, Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD Copies M KAMiSa : : I i I i I HIGH COURT DATED:1511212025 j ORDER CRP.No.1286 of 2025 .i;*. DISMISSING THE CRP 6 v \