The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Resp,ondents in both CRPs: SRI M. SHIVA SHEKI\R The Court made the lollowing: COMMON ORDER THE HONOURABLE DT.JUSTICE G.RADHA RANT CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2723 AND 2876 OF 2022 COMMONORDER: Civil Revision Petition No,2723 of 2022 is filed by the petitioner-defendant No.1 in O.S No.178 of 2013 challenging the order dated 15.03.2022 passed in I.A. No.1515 of 2021 in O'S. No.178 of 2Ol3 by the I-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, for demarking the document marked as Ex.B2, a certified copy ofthe unregistered partition deed dated 22.06.1969.

2. Civil Revision Petition No.2876 of 2022 is hled by the petitioner-defendant No.l in O.S. No.179 of 2013, challenging the order dated 15.03.2022 passed in I.A. No.1516 of 2021 in O.S No.179 <:f 2013 by the I-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Coutt, Secunderabad, for demarking the document marked as Ex.B2, a certified copy of the unregistered partition deed dated 22.06.1969.

3. Heard Sri Sripada Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Setty Raviteja, leamed counsel for the petitioners on record and Sri M. Shiva Shekar, leamed counsel for the respondents' 2 Df,GRR,l ( RP ib .2721&2E76 of 2022

4. Learled counsel for the petitioners submitt€ d that no objection wa: taken by the respondents while exhibiting Ex.B2- uregsitered p;r'tition deed. The same was filed and rnarked on

08.1 1 .2021 . f tre said paftition deed was also earlier marke,l as exhibit in O.S. No.31 1 of 2009 between the same parties except )ne among them, D. Shrr ini-respondent No.4 herein (plaintifl' Nr,.4). The document Ex.ll2 was an age old document executed on 22.t16.1969, as such, the trial (louft ought to have drawn a legal presumption. The trial Court failed to see that Ex.B2 was validated and endo .sed by the Collector, Hyderabad District, under the Indian Staml,s Act on

18.07.2000. I.. was the second round of litigation. Th,: plaintiff No.l was the daughter-in-law of one Veeroji. The petitioncrs herein- defendants we1) the sons of late Veeranna and late Chimo i, brothers of late Veeroji There was an oral partition among the brotlrers and by virtue of a family settlement,, all the brothers were resitling in separate portions in tlur suit schedule property. But, the pro pefiy was registered in the name of Veeroji, the elder brother. Tt e plaintiff No.l during thr: lifetime of her husband or her father-in. law never objected the possession of the defendants in the suit schedule property, but a 1er their death, il ,?. *u, claiming the propt,rty 3s fta1 -a I : J I>.cnR,J CRr Nos272Ji92E76 of 2022 of Veeroji alone, the defendants filed a suit for injunction vide O'S' No.31 I of 2009 on the frle of I-Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad and the same was allowed. The appeal filed against it by the respondents-plaintiffs herein vide A.S. No'62 of 2012 was also dismissed confirming the order of the trial Court on 21'06'2016' The partition deed was marked as an exhibit in the said suit in O'S' No'311 of 2001 as Ex.A1 therein. No objection was taken at the time of marking the said document in the said suit.

4.1 The respondents herein subsequently filed the present suits O.S. Nos.178 ad 179 of 2013 against the revision petitioners- defendants seeking the relief of declaration of titte and recovery of possession. The plaintiff No'l was examined in these suits as PW'l and she admitted in her cross-examination that the defendants were residing in the suit schedule properties since 1969' The husband of plaintiff No.l nor her father-in-law Veeroji never objected the partition during their lifetime. AS the document marked under Ex.B2 was also earlier marked as an exhibit in O'S No'311 of 2009 and no objection was recorded at the time of marking the said document' the trial Court ought not to have de-exhibited the same' The trial Court ought to have taken a call at the time of the judgment without passing AE td< : 4 Df,GRR,J CRP \o -2723&2876 of 2022 any order in tlr,: impugned application and relied upon tire judgments of the Hon'bl,: Apex Court in Bipin Shantilal Panchal ',,. State of Gujarat and :rnotherr on the aspect that: ''13. It is an archaic practice that during rhe erilence collecting stage, whenever any objection is raised regarding admissibility of any material in er i,lence the court does not proceed further without pzssing order on suih objection. But the fall out of th: above practice is this: Suppose the trial court. in a lirse, upholds a particular objection and exclucles th: material from being admitted in evidence and th :r proceeds with the trial and disposes of the case filally. If the appellate or revisional court. when th: same question is re-canvassed, could take a di "I'ercnt view on the admissibility of that material in such cases the appellate court would be dcprived of the benefit of that evidence, because that wa-s not prt on record by the trial court. In such a situation th,: higher court may have to send the case back to th,: trial court for recording that evidence and then to tlispose of the case afresh. Why should the trial pr,rLong like that unnecessarily on account of prru:tices created by ourselves. Such practiccs. wlu:n realised through the course of long period to be hindrances which impede steady and swift pr()iyess of trial proceedings, must be recast or 1.e- mouldcd to give way for better substitutes which wrnrld help acceleration of trial proceedings_

14. When so recast, the practice which can ber a beler substitute is this: Whenever an objection is rais,:d during evidence taking stage regarding the ad rLissibility of any material or item of oral ev rlence the trial courl can make a note of such obir:ction and mark the objected document ter tatively as an exhibit in the case (or record the ob erctcd part of the oral evidence) subject to sur:h ob erctions to be decided at the last stage in the final jut:gment. If the court finds at the final stage that the objection so raised is sustainable the judge ,rr ' lzoot; : scc r 5 Dr.GRR,t CRP Nos.272J&2E76 of 2022 magistrate can keep such evidence excluded ftom consideration. In our view there is no illegality in adopting such a course. (However, we make it clear that if the objection relates to deficiency of stamp duty of a document the court has to decide the objection before proceeding further. For all other objections the procedure suggested above can be followed.)

15. The above procedure, if followed, will have two advantages. First is that the time in the trial court, during evidence taking stage, would not be wasted on account of raising such objections and the court can continue to examine the witnesses. The witnesses need not wait for long hours, if not days. Second is that the superior court, when the same objection is re-canvassed and reconsidered in appeal or revision against the final judgment of the trial court, can determine the correctness of the view taken by the trial court regarding that objection, without bothering to remit the case to the trial cou( again for fresh disposal. We may also point out that this measure would not cause any prejudice to the parties to the litigation and would not add to their misery or expenses." and of the High Court of Bombay in Naginbhai P. Desai v. Taraben A. Sheth2 on the aspect that: "Once a document, improperly stamped, is admitted in evidence, it is not open to the Trial Court or to a Court o[ Appeal to go behind that order."

4.2 He further relied upon the judgment of the erstwhile High Court of A.P. in Pullela Lakshminarayana and another v '(zooz) Scc Onl-ine Bombay I I 14 s ''" 6 Dt-GRR,I CRP No 2721&2876of2022 Maddimsetti Mukteswara Rao and another3, wherein by placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat and another (1 supra), the High Court z.51eed with the opinion of the trial Cou t that the unregistered L:ase deed can be received in evidence and marked on behalf of the plaintiff.

4.3 He lurther relied upon the judgment of the Horr'ble Apex Court in S.Kaladevi v. V.R. Somasundaram and othe rsa on the aspect that: ''An unregistered sale deed is tendered in elirlence, not as evidence of a completed salc. but as proof of an oral agreement of sale, the deed can be reccived in evidence making an endorsement thal it is received only as evidence of an orai agr()ement of sale under the proviso to Section 49 ,rf 1908 Act."

4.4 He Iurther placed reliance upon the judgment ol this Court in Sri Kathi l,{arsinga Rao v. Kodi Supruya and anothers on the aspect that: "Certified copies obtained from Court proceedings of another suit being public documents within thc m(laning of Section 74 read with 77 of the Evidence Act can be exhibited." I 2009 scc online ,\D t09 o zoro 1s; scc +or t 20l6 SCC Online lt rderabad 7 DTARR"I CRP Nos272l&2E76 of 2U2

4.5. He further relied upon the judgment of the Hieh Court of Guj arat in Apurva Dave v. Prapti Apurva Dave6 wherein in a family court matter, the wife had not disputed the contents of the CD frled by the respondenrhusband and she had nowhere. mentioned that the CD was false and fabricated, it was held that: "section 65-B certificate can be provided at a later stage and it was not a legality going to the root of the matter and the document ought to have been permitted to be produced in the mafter."

4.6. He further placed reliance upon the judgment of the High Court of A.P. in Parchuri Sireesha and another v' Challapalli Jalaja7 on the aspect whether an unregistered gift deed could be received in evidence for collateral purpose and observed that: "Since the matter is only at the first stage of collection of deficit stamp duty and penalty on the gift deed, there was no need to go into the other aspect as to whether the same could be received in for collateral purpose and permission "uid"tt"" ought to have been considered by the trial court for payment and collection of deficit stamp duty and penalty on the instrument in question."

4.7. He further placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Z. Engineers Construction Private Limited u 2019 SCC Online Gujarat 2l l3 7 2019 scc onLine AP 268 8 Dr.GRR,l CRP No .272J&2E76 oJ 2022 and another v. Bipin Bihari Bahera and otherss v.herein an objection was taken with regard to impounding of polver c f attomey, it was held that; "Such objection was required to be decjded at the threshold but jncase where evidence is requirqd to detr.mine the nature of docunrent, it was reasonable to defer that issue at he time of final decision in the suit and remitted the matter to the tri rl court to decide the petil'ion on admissibility of the document alon,; with the main suit""

4.8. He further placed reliance upon the judgrn:nt of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dhanpat v. Sheo Rame on the aspect of "objections relirrding admissibility of the 'Will' shall be rtecided by the court at ther final stage, unless there is a legal provision to the contrary, as tht: bar on taking into evidence a compulsorily stampable document whir:h is not stamped or is deficiently stamped, may then have to be decided as a preliminary issue.,,

4.9. He lurther relied upon the judgment of the Hor: ,ble Apex Court in Korukonda Chatapathi Rao v. Korukonda Annapurna 8 2020 (4) sCC .]58 ' 2020 ( t6) scc 20q 9 D.GxR,J CRP No!2723&2E76 oJ 2022 Sampath Kumarlo wherein by applying the test laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it was held that: "The words in the khararunama are intended to refer to the arrangements allegedly made by the parties in the past and the document itself would not create, declare, assign, extinguish or limit right in the properlies as such, the khararunama would not attract Section 49 (1)(a) of the Registration Act."

5. Leamed counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contended that the suit was filed by the respondents-plaintiffs seeking declaration of title, recovery of possession and consequential injunction. The respondent No. I was examined as PW' I and got marked the documents in support of her claim. The matter was posted for the evidence of defbndants and the defendants got hled the Certified Xerox copy of the unregistered partition deed dated

22.06.1969 seeking leave of the Court to receive the said document' The respondents have taken an objection that the said document could not be received in evidence and so also could not be marked as an exhibit even for collateral purpose. They contended that the unregistered partition deed was forged and the same was brought into existence only for the purpose of grabbing the suit schedule propedy. While considering the objection raised by their '' 1zozz1 15 scc 4ls 10 Df,GRR,J CRt' \o. 272J&2E76 of2022 counsel, the h'ial court marked the certified Xerox copy of the unregistered partition deed as Ex.B2 (subject to objection br want of registration) re.lying upon the statement of the counsel that ;tamp duty was paid on the said document.

5. 1 . He fuither contended that even though tt e original document was impounded and deficit stamp duty was collected, the defect of non- 't:gistration could not be cured as per Sectiorr 17 of the lndian Registr,rtion Act. As such, the respondents filed the impugned I.As., seeking to de-exhibit the document marked as Ex.B2. From the beginning, an :bjection was taken with regard to marl,ling rf the said document. It was marked on the last date of hearing on ()8.11.2021 without consi<lt:ring their objections. On the application; filed by them, the trial r:ourt considering merits in their submissio rs and the judgments of t re Hon'ble Apex Court in the said regard all twed their applications de-exhibiting Ex.B2. There was no illegality irr the order of the courl below and relied upon the judgments of ther Hig h Court of Judicature of 'l r:langana and Andhra Pradesh in Sure Ran1,1a Murali Krishna Redd5, v. Sure Yerri Vara Prasada Reddy ancl othersrt, rr zots 15y ,tt.o :so l1 Dt CIR,J CRP Nor272J&2875 of 2022 Lakkoji Mohana Rao v Lakkoj i Viswanadham and othersr2, Dammu Eswara Rao v. Gorli Goureshl3 and Budha Jagadeeshwara Rao v. Sri Ravi Enterprisesra; and of the Hon'ble Apex Court in K.B. Shah and Sons Pvt. Ltd.v. Development Consultant Ltd.ls and R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami and V.P. temple and anotherr6 and of this Court in Smt. Yeluvolu Blessy Sheeba v. Smt. Amgoth Anitha NayakrT.

6. Now the point for consideration: Whether the trial courl committed an error in demarking the document exhibited as Ex.B2?

7. Admittedly, the suit was filed for declaration of title and recovery of possession by the plaintiffs, the daughter-in-law and grand children of late Veeroji claiming that the suit schedule properties were the self acquired properties of Veeroj i and Veeroji executed an unregistered Will bequeathing the said properties in favour of his wife Smt. L. Narsubai and his only son L. Jagadeeshwar and that L. Jagadeeshwar died intestate and Narsubai executed a gift settlement tl. - L1' " 2otz G) eto 32'l " zott 1zy ALD az8 " 2017 (l) HLT 56 '' zoot 1o; eLo ez iscl 16 AIR 2oo3 sc 4548 '' cRp No.t769 or2o23 dated 09.1o.2o23 t2 Dt.GRR,J CRP \ot 2721&2876 of2022 deed in favour of her two grandsons. The defendants are .he sons of late Veeranna ,md late Chinnoji, the brothers of late Ve,:roji. The contention of the defendants in their written statement w rs that the suit schedule frroperties were purchased from the joint larn ly nucleus and was kept in the name of Veeroji, who acted as kaft.ra of joint family and the'r: was a partition among late Veeroj i and his brotirers in the vear 1969. The defendants herein earlier filed a suit fo- perpetual injunction against the plaintiffs herein, vide O.S-No 311r2009 with respect to thc ;,rme schedule of properties. In the said suit, they got filed and rrar<ed the partition deed as Ex.Al. Though it u,as an unregistered do,:ument, the same was marked to prove the lossessl0n of the defendants herein i.e., the plaintiffs therein for collateral purpose. The rl,:fendants have now filed the certified copy rf the said partition deed as Ex.B2. An objection was taken by the p laintiffs at the time ol' rnarking of the said document also and the same was marked subject to objection being an unregistered docun ent. The contention of tre defendants was that they got validater I the said partition deed t,y paying necessary stamp duty and an en,Jorsement was also mac e, by the Coh&or with regard to recei rt of the stamp duty arul the objection with regard to non_regis tration of l3 DTCRR,J CRP Nos2nl&2E76 of 2022 the said document can be considered at the final stage of passing the judgment. But the plaintiffs filed an application for de-exhibiting the said document and the same was allowed by the trial court vide the impugned orders which was the subject matter of these revisions.

8. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat and another (1 supra)' a procedure was suggested by the Hon'ble Apex Court to postpone the decision on the admissibility of the document till the final stage of the case except with regard to the objection relating to the deficiency of stamp duty as it would not waste the precious time of the court. However, without following the said procedure, the trial court had underlook to decide the validity of the unregistered parlition deed. As the validity of the document has to be decided by the trial court even at the final stage and as already there was a lapse of almost three years in deciding these revisions and the trial could not be proceeded because of the pendency of these revisions, it is considered fit to pass an order with regard to the validity of the said document without postponing the said aspect to a final stage. 14 Dr.GRR,l CRI'.\o: 2721&2876 ol2022

9. lt is considered fit to extract Section 49 of .he Indian Registration Act, 1908 for better appreciation of the case "zl!), Effect of non-registration of documents requircd to be registered. No document required by section t7 [or by arl provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882)1, to be registered shall (a) affect any immovable property ccnprised therein, or (b) confer any power to adopt, or (c) be received as evidence of any tnrr)saction affecting such property or conlerring such power, unless it has been registered: Provided that an unregistered document af t:cting immovable property and required by this Arl. or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (.1 of 1 E 82), Lo be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance urder Chapter II ofthe Specific Relief Act, 1877 (3 of 1877) or as evidence ofany collateral transaction luct required to be effected by registered inrilrument."

10. Section l7 of the Registration Act speaks of locuments which are corn rulsorily registerable. It reads as follows: "17. Documents of conrpulsory. which registration . ( 1)The following documents shall be rell;stered, if the property to which they relate is sit:ate in a district in which, and if they have been cr,',-.ured on or afier&eJate on which. Act XVI ol 185{. or rhe lndian Registration Act. 1g66, or the Inrlian Registration Act, 1871. or the Indian .i 15 D.-Gt.R,J C R P Nos 27 2l &2t 76 oJ 20 2 2 Registration Act, 18'17, or this Act came or comes into force, namely, (a)instruments of gift of immovable property; (b)other non-testamentary instruments which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property; (c)non-testamentary instruments which acknowledge the receipt or payment of any consideration on account of the creation, declaration, assignment, timitation or extinction of any such right, title or interest; and (d)teases of immovable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent; (e) non-testamentary instruments transferring or assigning any decree or order of a Court or any award when such decree or order or award purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable ptoperty.

11. Section 17 (1) (b) of the Registration Act lays down that a document for which registration is compulsory should, by its own force, operate or purport to operate to Qreate or declare same rights in immovable property. A document though unregistered can, however, be looked into under the proviso to Section 49 of the Act, to be used as evidence of any collateral transaclignlot required to be effected by \ t6 DT.GRR,J CR? \'o\ 2723&2876 of 2022 a registered ir strument. Thus, an unregistered paftition dt,ed s6n 6. received in evidence only to prove the collateral purpose ol severance in status, but rurt the main purpose of creating or extingui rhing right over the properly.

12. As F,er the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the respondents-pllintiffs in Sure Ranga Murali Krishna Reddy v. Sure Yerri Varaprasada Reddy (li supra), the High Court of Telangana and A.P., after considering the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Courl Ilipin Shantilal Panchal v State of Gu.jarat and another (1 suJ,r'a), Javer Chand v. Pukhraj Surana [AIF|. 1961 SC 16551, Avinash Kumar Chauhan v. Vijay Krishna Mishra [2009 (1) ALD l0!) (SC)l and R.V.E. Venkatachata Gounder v Arulmigu Visrvesaraswami and V.P. temple and an,rther (11 supra) observerl that: '16. h the case on hand, the objection is not on I u ith rcgard to the mere suflicienc.v or oI[ c nvisc of the stamp dut1, payable on the original patition deed but. also with regard to not- rcpi;tration ol the original partition deed. The laiv is grell settlcd that there is no bar undel laru to cors;ider at any stage of the matter, an ol.ljection nhir:h is raised with regard to the admissibility r.rf an rmreqistered document. which is cornpulsorily rcgir;terable, even though such document is marked as iul exhibit, more parlicularly. when such marking is 3iven inadvertently' and rvithout applicafion oT mitil. Indeed. in a^recenl decision in Unia pande,r, h-- t7 DT.GRRJ CRP Nor.272l&2876 oJ 2022 and zrnother v. Mu.rna Pandey and others, (201 8) 5 SCC 376, the Supreme Court held that question relating to admissibility of an unregistered partition deed relied upon by the defendants is a substantial question of lat' and can be permitted to be raised even in a second appeal. Further, as aheady noted the larv is well senled that Section 35 only deals with original instruments and not copies and that Section 36 cannot be so interpreted. as to allow sccondary evidence of an instrument to have its beneiit. The rvords 'an instrument' in Section 36 must have the same meaning as that in Section 35. 1'he Legislature only relented from the strict provisions of Section 35 in cases where the original instrument was admitted in evidence rvit-hout objection at the initial stage of a suit or proceeding. Therefore, the document in question now being a certified copy and not an original the benefit cannot be extended to it in any vierv olthe matter. 17- In the facts and circumstances and in view of the precedential guidance, this Court is ofthe u'ell considered vierv that the Court below was in error in nrarking the document, viz., CC of unregistered partition deed as Exhibit B1 without application of mind and without first deciding the objection raised as ordained iri the decision ofthe Supreme Court in Bipin Shantilal Panchal's oase (supra) and in further refusing to accede to t}e request of the plaintiff to de-exhibit the document or exclude/eschew it from evidence lor deciding its admissibility or otherrvise aftcr adverting to the aspects viz., wheflrer it's original was duly stamped/charged with duty and whether it can be admitted in evidence for collateral purpose in the light of the ratios in the precedents adverted to supra. For the foregoing ieasons. this Court finds that the order is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside."

13. The erstwhile High Court of A.P. in Lakkoji Mohana Rao v. Lakkoji Viswanadham and others (12 others), after considering various judgments culled out the principles laid down in various 1 18 DT.CRB"J ;2721&2E76 of 2022 CRP ^'L judicial precedents with regard to admissibility of an ur egistered document as evidence and held. that: "1).1. As discussed above, the document sought to b,: filed is nothing but a partition deed creating rilht and title in the lands said to have beeir allotted tc the parties. It is settlcd law that registration o1' drrcument which is to be required u/s l7(l)(b) of the Registration Act makes the document inadmissible in evidence. Under Section 49(c) ol the Registration Act, no document required by Srr:tion 17 to be registered shall be reccived a-s svidence of any transaction affecting thc said pr operty unless it has been registered. Of course the proviso says that an unregistered document alli:cting immovable property and required to be registered, may be received a^s evidence of a cr rrtract in a suit lor specific performance or as er i.lence of part performance of a bontract for lhe ptupose of section 53-A of the Transfer ol Propertl A:t or as evidence ofany collateral transaction not reluired to be affected by registration of init.rument. 2i. The A.P. Amendment Act l7 of 1986 canre into fo"r:e with effect from l6-08-1986 and definition of "ins;trument of partition" under scction 2(15) ol the InJian Stamp Act has been amended. As referred in th,: above paragraphs even a memo recording past par.ition is also brought within the definition of "irLstrument of partition" by virtue of the said anu:ndment. Thus, the argument that a document is mr)ely a record of family arrangement, settlement or acknowledgment of prior partition and adnrissible lor collateral purpose is no more avrilable after the above amended provisions of Inr an Stamp Act came into force. Section 35 ol' thc Indian Stamp Act is very clear and creates a ckar bar and therefore unstamped document is iniLclmissible in evidence for any purpose. Arlrnittedly the alleged document i.e. partition deed is :)rargeable with duty. In view ofthe settled legal po;rtion i.e. the bar engrafted r/s 35 of thc Indian t9 Dr-GRA,l CRP Nos.2723&2E76 of 2022 Stamp Act is an absolute bar and therefore the document cannot be used for any purpose unlike the bar contained in Section 49 of the Rogistration Act.

26. .. .Collateral purpose means not for the purpose of proving the partition or allotment of shares or creating of any right. For example, in a case the Parties have partitioned their properties in 07-01- 1953 and after some time they prepared the lists of properties allotted to the parties or prepared a memo of family arrangement and a suit for partition is filed in the year 1960 and the party who pleads that partition had taken place on 07-01-1953 proves his possession by filing documentary evidence that he has been in exclusive possession of the properties allotted to him and that there was a severance ofjoint lamily and his status is no more as a member of Joint Hindu family and his status has changed. Then in such circumstances only for the purpose of proving that his possession commenced from 1953 onwards or that his status is not as a member of Joint Hindu Family, for that purposes a family arrangement which was reduced into writing as the lists prepared alone amounts after the actual date of partition could be received for collateral purpose. If the said document cannot be proved to show that the partition had taken place on 07-01-1953 or that the properties were allotted to those parties in pursuance ofthe said partition on 07-01-1953, thus it is clear that a document for the purpose of proving the terms of such document iannot be admitted in evidence. Thus the document carmot be received to say that it created or declared assigned or limited or extinguished a right to immovable properties. The term collateral purpose would not permit the parties to establish any of these facts ftom the deed. In the name of collateral ' purpose, no document can be received nor any right said to har" been created, declared or assigned or limited or extinguished can be inferred from such document." 20 DrcRS,t -2723&2E75 o12022 CRP ^o

14. This Court in Dammu Eswara Rao v. Gorli G,ruresh (13 supra) held thiLt: "8. In the case on hand, the said document was not admitted in evidence earlier. Admitte(llv, the dix:ument in issue is not duly stamped as requirod urxler Section 35 and is not registered as-required unrler Section 17 of thc Indian Registration A,lt. 'l'rr.rs, mere admission of documcnt in anothcr suit is :rot a bar for a party to raise an ob.jection in ar other suit. Section 36 of the Act has limited ag,plication and the language employed therr:in w ruld make it clear that it has no application to a.n1 other suit, though the document may be the same. Tllrs. it is permissible lbr a partir to a suit to raise ar rbjection on the marking ofthc document if the sanre is not duly stamped- This aspect $as llot ccnsidered b-v the trial court while over'-rulinq lhe ot1:ction.

14. F-urther. when an objcction was raised on adnrissibility of docrunent in evidence, i1 rs u,urdatory lbr the Court to consider such otricction and assign reasons in suppott ofthe decision."

15. The High Court for the States of Telangana ard Andhra Pradesh in Burlha Jagadeeshwara Rao v. Sri Ravi Enterprises (14 supra) had dir;r:ussed the concepts 'main purpose, and ,collateral purpose' as fbllrrws: '26. The concepts main purpose and coltateral pulrose play a pivotal role for admitting or not ad nitting in evidence an un-registered document co r,pulsorily registerable. The mairr pupose tnears tht purpose mentioned in Section-l7 i.e. for the pu pose of creating1deqlaring, assigning, Iimiting or e,xtinguishing a right to immoveable property, etc. Such a document when compulsorv 2l Dr.GRR,l CRP Nos2723&2676 of 2022 "*p.".sion registerable not admissiblo in evidence for the said -ii, pu.por"t. The effect of non-registmtion of sush an instrument compulsory registerable is that the instrument doesn't affect any inrmoveable property comprised therein nor car it be ieceived as evidence of any transaction affecting such property' It does not follow, however, that the document is wholly irrelevant. Though the instrument is not admissibte for the purpose of proving a concluded transaction transferring an interest, yet it can be received in evidence for collateral purposes' Collateral purpose is any purpose other than that of creating, declaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing a right to immoveable property. The proviso to Section-49 permits the use of an un- iegistered document even compulsorily be registered, as evidence of a collateral transaction wilhin the meaning of Section-49 proviso' Collateral transaction means a transaction other than the transaction affecting the immoveable property but which is in some ways connected with it. ih" collateral transaction is not used in the sense of an ancillary transaction to a principal transaction or subsidiary transaction to a main lransaction. The root meaning of the word collateral is running together or running on parallel lines. The transaction as recorded would be a particular or specific transaction. But it would be possible to read in that transaction what may be iatled the purpose of the transaction and what may be called i collateral purpose. The fulfillment of that collateral purpose would bripg into existence a collateral transaction, which may be said to be a part and parcel ofthe transaction but nonetheless, a iransaction which runs together with or on parallel lines with the same. Thus, a collateral purpose is a purpose which must be unrelated to the terms and to.tditio.tt of the main purpose of the transaction covered by the document. It must be independent of, or diviiible from the transaction which requires registration, and it must be a transaction not by itself required to be effected by a registered document. The term collateral purpose is a very vague one and theretbre it is the courts that must decide in each case depending upon facts and circumstances and from contents, as to whether the parties who seek a compulsory but unregistered ,i ..4::t-tt' 22 Dr.cRR,t CRP Nt ;.2723&2E76 o!2022 dllr.ment when not admissible to main purpose, lbr a l)urpose which is really a collateral purpose tcr ri€an other than for any of the main purposcs n.entioned as held in K.Panchapagesu Aiyyar Vs. K.,(alyanasundaram Aiyyar. It is because a part1, ci )not use such un-registered document by the sinrple device of calling it as collateral purpose. In legal proceedings what one cannot directly bring alx)ul. cannot indirectly bring about is hcld ir A.C.Lakshmipathy and Others Vs. A.M. Chakrapahi Reddiar.In-AIR-I932-PC-55 and Kashinath Bhaskar Datar Vs. Bhasker Viveshwar it was clearly held that to decide whether registration required or'not the words creating, declaring. a: signing, limiting or extinguishing a right to inrr.roveable property are ejusdem-generis ancl, inply a definite change of legal rights in the prcperty that is main purpose. Where the document drx:snt reflect any definite change of legal rights in the property and merely recites what the existing ri:;Jrts therein are i.e. mere acknowledgment ol a fact took place, likewise merely recites with whorr the possession of the property [ies, it cannol be ct rLstrued from the contents as of creating. dtclaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing an1 ri1{its in immovable property. See also Uma Der,.i arc Others Vs. Shaik Hussaini and O hers , Harendra H. Mehta and Others \,/s. M ukesh H.Mehta & Ramlaxmi Ranchlodal Vs. Brurk of Baroda, Hyderabad. In-1969(l) SCWR ir w r:; held that evidence as to character of possession is being considered as collateral purpose. See al xr Hari Waman Rao and Others Vs. Pappula Nrusimlu. In-AIR-1959-SC- 199-it was held tliat character of possession prior to date of dooument cannot be regarded as collateral purpose. The test wruld be whether the party relying on the rellstered document seeks to rely on its terms lbr aftcting such property or conferring such power. If thr: genuineness of a document is questioned, the execution of the document itself will have to be pr,r'red and that cannot be a collateral purpose. For in:rtance, an unregistered lease deed cannot be relir:d upon to enforce the terms of the agreement su,:h as the period of tenancy, quantum of rcnt. mrrlual obligations under the agreement, whcre the lessee has the right to sub-lease or to carry out the 23 Dr.GRR,I CRP Nos272J&2E76 of 2022 repairs to the building etc., In other words, what is prohibited is the attempt to enforce the terms of the unregistered document, but not to establish the purpose lor which the property was given possession i.e., nature of possession which is a iollaterat purpose. See Sardar Amar Singh and Others Vs. Smt Surinder Kaur ; AIR-1977-AP-371; 197 5(2) APLJ-298; Gangayya and Others Vs S' Madan Chand Samdaria ; Raghunath Singh and Others Vs. Kishanla (deceased LR); 1975(2) AIWR-226:( 1)APLJ-312; S.K.Agarwal Vs' M' Venkateswarlu - all the above cases are relating to unregistered lease deed ot agreements. In Ambati Durgamma vs. Pericherla Ragapathiraju it was held that an unregistered lease deed. which is compulsorily registerable can be looked into for the purpose of proving nature of possession of lessee over leasehold land' In Giri Yadav vs. L.Ramesh Goud it was held that a lease deed in respect of immovable prope(y for a period exceeding one year or reserving yearly rent requires registration. However, unregistered lease is admissible in evidence for collateral purpose of proving possession of a PartY."

16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in K'B' Shah and Sons Pvt' Ltd.v. Development Consultant Ltd' (15 supra) explained the principles as to what can be considered as a collateral transaction and held that: "A collateral transaction must be independent of, or divisible from, transaction which requires res.istration and must no{ by itself be registerable' Aiocument which, il inadmissible in evidence for want of registration, none of its terms can be admitted in evidence. Use of a document for proving an important clause would not be using it as a collateral PurPose." DTGRR,J ;-2723&2E76 of2022 CRP ^. The Hon'ble A.pex Court in the above case also refetred .he case of High Court o{.\llahabad in Ratan Lal & ors. v. Harisan},ar & Ors. [AIR 1980 Al ahabad 180], wherein it was held that: "'-he second contention was that the partilion deed. e,'en if it was not registered couid certainly be lcoked into for a collateral purpose, but thc collateral purpose has a limited scopc and neaning. It cannot be used for the purpose of seying that the deed created or declared or assigned or limited or extinguish the right to immovablc propcrty ..........term collateral purpose would ;'rot pt rmit the party to establish any of these acts from the deed."

17. The Hon'ble Apex Court in R.V.E. Verrkatachala Gounder v. Arulinigu Viswesaraswami and V.P. temple and another ('16 S lpra), while considering the argument that th: objection to the admissib,ility of the document can be raised onl_v when it is tendered but nor. subsequently, held that: "19. Ordsr l3 Rule 4 ofthe CPC provides for every dccument admitted in evidence in the suit being enCorsed by or on behalf of the Courl, which enCorsement signed or initialed by the Judgo anlorurts to admission ofthe document in evidence. ArL objection to the admissibility of the document sh r,:ld be raised before such endorsement is made anl the Court is obliged to form its opinion on the qu:stion of admissibitity and express the same on rvl ich opinion would depend the document beitrg en,l,lrsed as admitted or not admitted in evidence. in the latter oase, the dsq;ment may be retumed by thr Courl to the person from whose custody it was prr,<luced 25 Dr-GRR,J CRP Nos-2723&2876 of 2022

20. The leamed counsel for the defendant- respondent has relied on The Roman Catholic Mission Vs. The State of Madras & Arr. AIR 1966 SC 1457 in support of his submission that a document not admissible in evidence, though brought on record, has to be excluded from consideration. We do not have arly dispute with the proposition of law so laid down in the abovesaid case. However, the present one is a case which calls for the correct position of law being made precise' Ordinarily an objection to the admissibility of evidence should be taken when it is tendered and not subsequently. The objections as to admissibility of documents in evidence may be classified into two classes:- (i) an objection that the document which is sought to be proved is itself inadmissible in evidence; and (ii) where the objection does not dispute the admissibility of the document in evidence but is directed towards the mode of proof alleging the same to be iregular or insufficient ln the first case, merely because a document has been marked as 'an exhibit', an objection as to its admissibility is not excluded and is available to be raised even al a later stage or even in appeal or revision. In the latter case, the objection should be taken before the evidence is tendered and once the document has been admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit, the objection that it should not have been admitted in evidence or that the mode adopted for proving the document is irregular cannot be allowed to be raised at any stage subsequent to the marking of the document as an exhibii. The later proposition is a rule of fair play' The crucial test is whether an objection, if taken at the appropriate point of time, would have enabled the party tendering the evidence to cure the defect and^ resort to such mode of proof as would be regular. The omission to object becomes -fatal be-cause by his failure the party entitled to object allows the party tendering the evidence to act on an assumption that the opposite party is not serious about the mode of proof. On the other hand, a prompt objection does not prejudice the party i"ndeiing the evidence, for two reasons: frrstly, it enables the Court to apply its mind and pronounce its decision on the question of admissibility then \'. ir'li 26 Dt.GRR,l (RP No 2721&2676 of 2022 r-) ar(l there; and secondly, in the event of finding of the Court on the mode of proof sought to be arLopted going against the party tendering the evidence, the opportunity of seeking indulgence o1' the Court for permitting a regular mode or method ol rroof and thereby removing the objection raiscd by thc opposite party, is available to the paft). lel,Jing thg evidence. Such practice and procedr.rrc is lair to both the parties. Out of the two types of otriections, referred to hereinabove, in the later oase, failure to raise a prompt and timely objection arllunts to waiver of the necessity for insisting on fonnal proof of a document, the document itself rvr ch is sought to be proved being admissible in er i,lence. In the first case, acquiescence would be n( rar to raising the objection in superior Court." i8. tn the present case, an objection was takcn by the respondent-plaintiff with regard to admissibility of Ex.B2 when the document wa:; tendered in evidence. Though the doct ment was marked as an erxhibit subject. to the objection, the same would not enable the pa ly tendering the evidence to cure the de i.ect. The respondent als o immediately filed an application quest oning the admissibility cf E,x.B2. As such, the court, after going tl.rough the said objection trrker.r by the respondents even at the initial stage and considering tht: case laws in the said regard, had accepte,J the said document.

19. The contention of the learned counsel for the retitioners was that the petitioners had taken the plea of adverse possrssion ancl t ' o 27 Dt.GR&t CRP Not27B&2e 76 of 2022 an issue was also framed in the said regard by the trial court and the unregistered partition deed can be considered for proving the title of the defendants by adverse possession. But, when the petitioners were trying to prove their title through adverse possession and were using the unregistered partition deed to prove their possession, the same also cannot be considered as collateral purpose. As such, this Court considers that the unregistered partition deed cannot be used even for proving adverse possession by the defendants herein.

20. This court does not find any irregularity or illegality in the obserwations of the trial court in de-exhibiting Ex.B2 as the present t suit is hot a suit for injunction to prove the possession of the parties but a suit for declaration of title wherein it has to decide whether substantial rights were accrued to the parties by virtue of the above document,

21. In the result, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed confirming the orders dated 15.03.2022 passed in I.A. No'1515 of 2021 in O.S. No.178 of 2013 and I.A. No.1516 of 2021 in O.S. No.179 of 2013 by the I-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. No order as to costs. ,.2- l 28 DLGRR,J CRP.\o 272tt12876 oJ2022 'r) Miscelliureous applications, pending if any, shall star d closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. MOHD. ISMAIL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR l.\ i CTION OFFICER '1. The I Addition:rl Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad 2. One CC to Sri Setty Ravi Teja, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri tt4. Shiva Shekar, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies Plp/gh F- l To, HIGH COURT DATED:2010212025 COMMON OR.DER CRP.Nos.2723 and 2876 ot 2022 .,4 .+ : SIT e o.) 2 4 APB 2025 c ,tt JI t. ':o ---- -ta-" DISMISSING BOTH THE C.R.P.s G .qt'\ -F,vu \\\'"