The High Court · 2025

... Respondents/Defendants tqllcFF? lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ci cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in the suit bearing no. O. S. No. , 24 of 2022 (old O. S. No. 148 of 2019) on the file of I Additional District Judge, Ir ledchal - Matkajgiri District, At Malkajgiri till pending disposal of the present civit t evisron petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri. Rajashekar Thallapally Counsel for the Respondents: - The Court made the following: ORDER :7 , THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR CIYIL REWSION PETITION No. 3355 of 2023 ORDER: The present Civil Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated 16,082023 in Q.S. No. 224 of 2022 (old O.S. No- 148 of 2019) on the file of I Additiona[ District Judge, Medchal- Malkajgiri District, at Malkajgiri.

2. The revision petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the suit fited for partition and separate possession vide O.S. No. 224 of 2022 under Order VII Rule I r/w Section 26 of Civil Procedure Code (for Short'CPC').

3. The respondents herein are the def'endants in the above said Suit.

4. The brief facts of the case are that' the petitioner fited the subject suit for partition of item Nos. I to 29 ol the 'B' schedule properties by metes and bounds and sought for the declaration that he along with defendants in the suit are joint owners and possessors of Ac.14.22 gts., of land situated in Survey Nos.61l and 612 of Kondarnadugu village, Bibi Nagar Mandal, n'algonda District' The 2 petitioner during the trial, sought to introduce a rd mark an unregistered deed of family Setilemerit dated 06.01 1995 in his evidence. The contesting respondents Nos. I and 6 k) ) objected to the marking of the said documpnt, -oontending that i was in tbct a ' partition deed and hence inadmissible under Sect( n t7 of the "' . r 1r ,,4,.r,i.:.. -/]ir'i-a. j i"'i'r ti ::. Yi''i,i'i ''r Registration Act due to lack of registration.

5. Upon oondlderdhg'tlid.*hg,,SiiCAd A$dl$onal I ristrict Judge (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy District. by order dated

20.04.20 15, held that the docyment was lnadmissibl ' and further ernphasized that the document explicitly divided )roperty and ' ':.; ; ;'i;,iffi ilil;r ,.':' profits anrong the parties in specific percentagr;. indicating dir ision by metes and bounds, 4rtqryt merely severr rce of status. .['[rerefbre. the trial Court held that registration of thr said deed is mandatory and could not be accepted ifnot registerer.

6. Being aggrieved by the above said order, the pcr iioncr filed a Civil Revision petition before this Court vide C.R.t'. No. 26 l0 ol l0 15. This Cour-t while disposing of the said reri: ion petition. I l" / :i ll'i !lr' _. 'i upheld the finding of the Court below that the docurne rt styled as a t'anrily settlenlent deed amounted to a partition rr rd theretbre, 3 required registration under the Registration Act. However, this Court observed that the document could still be received in evidence if the petitioner demonstrates the collateral purpose for which it is sought to be reieived by the court. This Court fuither held that such collateral purpose must be independent ol the part partition mentioned in the order and shall be considered for the collateral purpose and not for any other purpose

7. Pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court in the above C.R.P, the petitioner herein filed ir,tterlocutory applications vide I.A. No- 1764 and 1765 of 2021 to recall PW-t and reopen evidence fbr marking the said document for collateral purposes- The Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy, by an order dated I 7 .01 .2022' allowed both the applications. Aggrieved by the said order. the respondent Nos. l, 6,7 and 9 filed a civil revision petition belore this court vide CW Nos. 409 and 414 of 2022. This Court dismissed both revision petitions by a common order dated

28.04.2023, holding that the admissibility of the document should be decided by the trial court based on whether the plaintifTsatisfied the col[ateral purpose requirement. Thus, this Couft reiterated that 4 reopening evidence did not guarantee admissilr tity of the document sought to be marked, and that responden s could still raise objections at the appropriate stage.

8. Upon this court dismissing the CRPs filed by respondent/defendants 1,6,7 and 9, the p_e,lilioner on

12.07.2023, filed an affidavit in lieu of his furthe. "ifitf'"*r, attempted to mark the unregistered family settlemt:r t deed. The rination and . t: petitioner also contended that the document was inr rounded and. ' ,'i"ni. :i:'i' ir-r ti'" ' | '' validated by payment of deficit stamp duty and pene.l y before the District Registrar under Section 42 of the Indian St,r np Act. The defendants in response submitted metno of@i@tions.

9. Tlie trial courl scrutinized the affidavit filed by t re petitioner and by its order dt. 16.08.2023 observed that it lackec any express r . ....;l ::._:..:,: l::r:il;, I _..... .. : . , or concrete mention of a collateral purpose as man tated by the lliglr Court in the order passed in CRP Nos. 409 and ll4 of 2022', and that the petitioner merely restated procedura I events and pa)-rnent of stanrp duty but faited to demonstrate corL' incingly the collateral purpose tbr marking the Family settlenr, nt deed dt ,r ii li 5

06.03.1995 in the affidavit dt. 12.07.2023 filed in to the courl in lieu of his additional/further chief examination.

10. The trial Court by observing as above, held that the affidavit dt. 12.07.2023 did not demonstrate the "collateral purpose', for marking the family settleriient deed dt. 06,03.1995 for it to be rrarked in evidence, the additiorral/ further chief examination affidavit is to be kept aside. ll.Aggrieved by the above said order dated. 16.08.2023 the petitioner herein had preferred the present Civil Revision petition

12. Heard leamed counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. tL The petitioner/plaintiff qottre4ds that the Triat Courr cornmirted an error in refusing to mark the unregistered Family Settlernenr Deed dated 06.03.1995 for a collateral purpose; that the trial Court laited to implement / follow the order passed by this Court in C. R. P. No. 2610 of 2015, wherein this Court had categorically hetd that atthough the document amounts to a partition and hence requires registration under Section 17 of the Registlation Act, it 6 could nevertheless be received in evidence if a rr lid collateral purpose is shown.

14. The petitioner herein contends that the trial Cor.r t adopted an incorrect and restrictive approach, misco4struing 'l e intent and purport of the order passed by this Court and denied tl e.marfting of the document, thus defeating the lirnited liberty exprr:r sly granted y this court; that the petitioner had,,ia compliqrye.with hp directions , , of this Court, duly filed an affidavit explaining he collateral purposes fbr r.i4r ich the docurnent was is sought to be marked; that he intended to mark the said documerlt for {rMo colla'r ral purposes, viz., (i) to shou' that the properties stood in tl e names of individuals who rvere in possession; and (ii):that thel were jointly purchased through t-amily e f-tort though registered n individual names; that the recitals of the document support thi se assertions and clarily that the properties were not self-acc r ired by the individual title holders but were jointly acquired for 1 re benefit of all the parties. such a purpose is collateral in nature ar J goes to the root of the relicf sought for in the suit filed by him. xxw:'a::::i::rraaaar:aaay '1,.','''Y'...''' 7 l 5. The petitioner also contends that the trial Court failed to properly distinguish between the ccllateral and prirnary purposes and erroneously construed the petitioner's attempt as one made to prove partition. In fact, the petitioner sought the said relief only to establish the background of possession and the joint nature of acquisition of the property. Therefore, the order dated 16.08.2023 passed by the trial Court is vitiated by a legal error and is liable to be set aside.

16. Per contra, the respondents contend that the Family Settlement Deed dated 06.03.1995, sought to be marked by the petitioner. is in essence a partition deed that specifically allocates definite shares in imrnovable properties to various individuals; that the recitals ol the docurnent explicitly mention percentages of ownership and prolit sharing in multiple scheduled properties, thereby amounting to a dir'ision of propefty by rnetes and bounds. Respondents fudher contend that as per Section 17(lXb) of the R.egistration Act, 1908, such a document mandatorily requires registration to be admissible in c'u'idence and f-aiture to register the document renders it 8 inadmissible for any purpose, unless a valid collater Ll purpose is clearly demonstrated.

17. The respondents contend that the petitioner has f.iled to firlfil the mandatory requirement laid down by this Court in C.R.:P. to speciff and substantiate the collateral purpose f:' which the unregistered 'deed IS sought to be marked; ttLr t the dhibf:':': examination affidavit does not disclose any collaterz,l purpose and mere reproduction of facts or general recitals does n rt satisff the legal requirement. In the absence ol a distinct and rr lid collateral purpose, the document cannot be marked ever.r for limited Pur?oses.

18. The respondents also contend that the payment o' leficit stamp duff and penalty under Section ,12 of the Indian Str np Act does ,..,.-.,"1*r, not rectiry the legat delect ol non-registration; that tre petitiondr " cannot bypass the statutor] lnandate o[ registrati<l L by merely validating the document tor st4rqp duty pu4poses; th rt it iS y?ll-* settled position of law that both registration and pro rer stampi;1g}r: are independent requlrements tor admissibility o1 a documont . whereas in tfie present case the absence of registra .ion is fatal, 9 despite the document being impounded and penalty paid; and that the trial Court has rightly rejected the affidavit and refused to admit the document in evidence. Therefore, the present Civil revision petition belng devoid of merit and contrary tg law, deserves to be dismissed with costs.

19. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

20. Ir is ro be nored that the issue relating tp a{p!gqi$li_1v.pf tltg:: said document was already dealt with by this Court in C.R.P. No. 2610 of 20[5, rvherein this Court upheld the finding of the trial Court, that the document in question amounted to a partition deed. wtrich recluires registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. However, limited liberty was granted to the petitioner/plaintifT to mark the document for a collateral purpose, provided such purpose is specifically pleaded and demonstrated before the trial Court. 2l.ln the present case, this Court finds that the affidavit dated

12.07.7023 fited by the petitioner ln lieu of his further chief exarnination rnerelv reiterates the circumstances ofthe execution of the document and rnentions that the properties were acquired \: .{.''{ I ' ' 10 through the joint and undivided famity resource:i and efforts Despite this court directing earlier to demonstrate he collateral purpose for marking the said document, the petitiont:r has failed to demonstrate any definite and distinct collateral prr pose that is separate'ftonr.the'core recitals relating to partition an I distribtrtion ,*r " of profits and shares embodied in the said document

12.T.hg petitjoner has relied upon the judgrnent t Sita Rqm. Sn Bhamt v. Ramvstar Bhamat, and emphasised that the Hon-ib[e r,,: . Supreme Court held that in a suit fbr partition, an unregistered p.artition deed or 'document may be relied upon fir a collateral,.:,,,, purpose i.e., severancy of title, nature oi possessic r of various shares, but not for the primary purpose i.e., division :'joint family properties by metes and bounds. Horvever, the said pr cedent is not applicable to the present case. as the concept ol a "collateral purpose" refers to a purpose incidental to the rnain r :cita.ls of the document and must be entirely independent ol he principal objective of proving partition bl rnetes and bounds. Ir the present case, it is evident that the petitioner seeks to rely on he documEnt ': 1(2018) 15 SCC 130 / ,/ 11 to assert that the properties, though standing in the' names of individuals, are in fact joint lamily properties. Such reliance would inevitabty lead to establishing rights and entitlements flowing from a partition, which constitutes a primary purpose and not a collateral one.

23. Furthermore, the payrnent of deficit stamp dilify and p€!'@{y., under the Indian Stamp Act, while irecessal'y for impounding, does not cure the defect of non-registration for documents that 'are.:' 1 r:':.:T .l I,r': 1ilJ-i !r,i. compulsorily registrable under Section 17 of the Registratioh Ailt. - rit r:! The mere act of vatidation belore the Registrar does not convert an unregistered partition deed into an admissible docu{pan$ qplgpp,*? . collateral purpose is specifica[[y established.

24. Further, the Famity Settlement Deed dated 06.03.1995 explicitly sets out the division of various items of thu'suit sched&{gv" property and the allocation ol pro[its among the parties in specific percentages. This indicates that the document is not merely a record of past events or alrangenlents, but a present and operative instrument ef-fecting partition. Therefbre. the said deed reflects a division by metes and bounds and not merely a severance of status. \.. -t \l\r \ 12

25. In light of the foregoing discussion, this C,r rrt is of the considered view that the Trial Court has rightll rejected the additional chief affidavit dated. 12.07.2023 filed by I re peritioner and deiiined to 'mark the sdid family settlement deed dated.

06.03.1995, inasmuch as the petitioner faited to satist,, rhe essenrial requiremenJ of ait$.l$"trlle:g cqUqtgral purpose as 1x r the earlier directions of this Court. Consequently, this Court flnr s no ground to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of its supervisory jurisdictioruutderiAu*:iiipAad tb,,Constirrltion of Inc [a.

26. For the above-mentioned reasons, this Courl i:, of the view that the order of the trial Court does not sutler tiorr I r1, inf-rrmity - ,.. ..r.,,-,i._.i l:; :rt.r i;:;i. ,,, ..: I or eITor. 27' Accordingly, the civir Revision petition is crerr id of rnerit and is disrnissed..The order dated 16.0g.2023 in O.S No. 224 of 2022 (old o.S. No. I48 of 2019) is susrained. No order i s to costs. Conseque4tly,,Ti?S:ll*toys,petitions pendin-u I any shail stand closed, No order as to costs. To, //TRUE COPYII S S ( SMAN ALI BAIG / NT REGISTRAR -- ,- :TION OFFICER i iI: Hi{"# R;;i'j;,#+?#:s:,tihYfl:?,?i 4. One Spare boov GS/qh o l.lCI HIGH COURT DATED:1110712025 ORDER CRP.No.3355 of 2023 a. -l w [fl.$ ! ]SPATC\ +".,., CRP IS DISMISSED ai- Ipn