Telangana High Court
Smt. K. Indramani vs Smt. Sathi Bhulaxmi on 3 April, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2561 OF 2023
ORDER:
The present revision petition is filed being aggrieved by the order dated 11.08.2023 made in I.A.No.78 of 2019 in O.S.No.9 of 2014 on the file of the V Additional District Judge, at Bodhan, Nizamabad District, whereunder, the said petition was dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff filed suit for declaration against the revision petitioners/defendants vide O.S.No.9 of 2014. In the said suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.78 of 2019 under Order XIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short 'CPC') seeking to reject and de-exhibit Ex.A24 - unregistered sale deed bearing No.18715 and 18716 dated 20.11.1996 stating that the said document was marked in the absence of defendants. It was contended that Ex.A24 is an unstamped and unregistered document, as such, the same cannot be marked as per Section 17 (1) (d) and Section 49 (c) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (for short 'Act 1908') and SKS,J C.R.P.No.2561 of 2023 2 Chapter IV (35) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short 'Act, 1899'). It was contended that as per Ex.A24 the name of plaintiff was mutated in the revenue records and after collecting the registration fee and stamp duty by the MRO, Bodhan, the proceedings were issued but the same was not endorsed on the document, as such, the said document is inadmissible in evidence and cannot be marked in exhibits series. It was further contended that marking of Ex.A24 amounts to misrepresentation with an intention to usurp the suit schedule property. Therefore, prayed to de-exhibit Ex.A24 by allowing the petition.
3. On behalf of respondent/plaintiff, a counter affidavit was filed denying the averments made in the petition and admitting that marking of Exs.A1 to A24 was objected by the Court itself on the ground of stamp duty and after being satisfied with the arguments of made, the Exs.A3,A4 and A24 were marked. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.
4. After hearing both sides, the trial Court dismissed I.A.No.78 of 2019 in O.S.No.9 of 2014 vide order dated SKS,J C.R.P.No.2561 of 2023 3 11.08.2023. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners/defendants filed this revision petition.
5. Heard Sri K.Devender, learned counsel for revision petitioners and Sri M.V.V. Basawa, learned counsel for respondents.
6. Learned counsel for revision petitioners submitted that the trial Court ought to have de-exhibited Ex.A24 for want of registration under Section 17(1)(b), Section 49(a) and (c) of the Act, 1908 and also for want of stamp duty as per Section 35, Explanation-I to Article 47-A of the Act, 1899. He contended that Ex.A24 is supposed to be treated as 'conveyance' for the purpose of payment of stamp duty and placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the division bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of B.Ratnamala Vs. G.Rudramma 1. He submitted that Ex.A24 document cannot be regularized vide proceedings bearing No.A5/7796/94 dated 02.01.1997 under the Ex.A3 as the Tahsildar has no power under Section 5a of the ROR Act, 1971 when the Ex.A24 itself contains stipulated 1 1999 SCC OnLine AP 438 SKS,J C.R.P.No.2561 of 2023 4 conditions as held in the case of K.Seethrama Reddy and Others Vs. Hassan Ali Khan and Others 2.
7. In addition to the above, learned counsel for the revision petitioners informed the Court that being aggrieved by dismissal of I.A.No.78 of 2019 in O.S.No.9 of 2014 initially C.R.P.No.1794 of 2022 was filed whereunder, vide order dated 24.02.2023 this Court remanded the matter to trial Court directing to consider the objections raised and in spite of the same, the trial Court dismissed the petition again on similar grounds. Therefore, prayed this Court to allow the revision petition, setting aside the order dated 11.08.2023 made in I.A.No.78 of 2019 in O.S.No.9 of 2014.
8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent submitted that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the petition filed to de-exhibit Ex.A24 and there are no infirmities in the order dated 11.08.2023. As such, prayed this Court to dismiss the revision petition as the same lacks merits. 2 2002 SCC OnLine AP 1036 SKS,J C.R.P.No.2561 of 2023 5
9. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that on the one hand, it is the contention of revision petitioners, that the Ex.A24 is inadmissible document for want of registration and stamp duty, whereas, on the other hand, the trial Court observed that the said document was validated by the M.R.O., by way of collecting the stamp duty and registration fee by following the procedure as per Section 5A of the ROR Act.
10. It is significant to note that there is no dispute as to the law under Section 5-A of the ROR empowering the M.R.O., to regularize the unregistered sale deed by conducting due enquiry as to the conveyance of land/agricultural land by collecting the stamp duty and registration fee. In the case on hand, the respondent purchased the suit property by way of unregistered sale deed which was marked as Ex.A24 and the same was regularized by the M.R.O., by following due procedure and whether there is any irregularity committed in the said regularization requires adjudication.
11. At this stage, it is also relevant to note that mere marking of document does not confer any right to the party on whose SKS,J C.R.P.No.2561 of 2023 6 behalf the document is marked. Further, whether the marked document that is a deed of conveyance is irrelevant or inadmissible needs to be looked into only after full-fledged trial.
12. That being so, in the present case, though Ex.A24 is marked before the trial Court on behalf of respondent, mere marking does not prove the contents of the said document. As such, this Court is of the view that marking of Ex.A24 would not cause any prejudice to the revision petitioners. There are no illegalities in the order dated 11.08.2023 made in I.A.No.78 of 2019 in O.S.No.9 of 2014. There are no merits in this revision petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
13. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to the costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date:03.04.2024 PT