Telangana High Court
Boyapati Sudershan Rao vs Smt Boyapati Swaroopa Rani on 15 April, 2024
Author: P. Sree Sudha
Bench: P.Sree Sudha
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1101 of 2024
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 20.03.2024 passed in I.A. No.97 of 2024 in O.S. No.1 of 2021 by the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bodhan.
2. Plaintiffs filed O.S. No.1 of 2021 for partition and separate possession. During the pendency of the suit, I.A. No.97 of 2024 was filed by defendant No.1 to record his objection and not to mark the document "Paartikhattu" (Partition Deed dated 23.08.2018) as an exhibit as it is not properly impounded and unregistered. The trial Court after hearing arguments on both sides, dismissed the application. The order of the trial Court reads as follows:
Heard the counsel for petitioner and respondent. The document/partition deed refused to mark as exhibits, then on the request respondent, the said document was sent to the Dist.Registrar, for impounding/collection of stamp duty and penalty. Accordingly, the Dist.Registrar, collected stamp duty and penalty and the same is endorsed.2
Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that the document cannot be received in evidence/marked as exhibit.
Since the document is stamped it can be received in evidence and if may be used collateral purpose, but is cannot be rejected to receive. Therefore, there is no merits in the petition.
In the result, the petition is dismissed.
3. Heard both sides. Perused the record.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the trial Court ignored the objection raised by the petitioner herein and marked the document as exhibit ignoring the fact that the document is hit by Sections 17 and 49 of Registration Act. The trial Court failed to consider and appreciate the settled law that mere impounding the document and collecting stamp duty cannot cure the deficiency of registration which is mandatory and non- registration of a compulsorily registrable document is inadmissible in evidence as such it cannot be received and cannot be looked into. He further stated that the trial Court erred in admitting the document as exhibit without appreciating the legality and validity and admissibility of 3 the document in spite of specific objection raised by the petitioner even before marking the document by the impugned order under challenge. The trial Court erred in admitting the document as exhibit without appreciating the schedule of properties described and prayer portion of the plaint which is wrongly formulated. Hence, requests this Court to set aside the order of the trial Court.
5. In the written statement filed by petitioner/defendant No.1, he clearly denied the document in para No.7. A perusal of the document shows that it is mentioned as "Paartikhattu" (Partition Deed dated 23.08.2018), it was written in telugu in which it was held that after the death of Boyapati Ramesh, they divided the property into Schedule 'A', 'B', 'C', 'D' and 'E', out of which Schedule 'A' belongs to defendant No.1, 'B' belongs to plaintiff No.1, 'C' belongs to plaintiff No.2, 'D' belongs to defendant No.2 and 'E' belongs to plaintiff No.2 and defendant No.1.
6. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that division of properties was specifically mentioned in partition deed as such it cannot be looked into for 4 collateral purpose and it shall be registered as per Section 17 and 49 of Registration Act.
7. Learned counsel for respondents contended that the document was received in the evidence. They filed the document only to prove their possession as such it can be looked into for collateral purpose not for the purpose of the partition of property.
8. The suit is filed for partition and separate possession and they mainly relied upon the said document apart from municipal permission along with registered sale deed dated 11.12.2020 and valuation certificate issued by Sub Registrar, Bodhan. Therefore, the argument of learned counsel for respondents that it was relied upon for collateral purpose cannot be accepted.
9. Learned counsel for respondents contended that the partition deed is the evidence of the fact that essential properties are joint family properties. He relied upon a judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Yellapu Uma Maheshwari and another Vs. Buddha 5 Jagadheeswararao and others 1, wherein they also relied upon a judgment of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Chinnappareddigari Peda Mutyala Reddy Vs. Chinnappareddigari Venkata Reddy 2 wherein it was held that the whole process of partition contemplates three phases i.e., severancy of status, division of joint property by metes and bounds and nature of possession of various shares. In a suit for partition, an unregistered document can be relied upon for collateral purpose i.e., severancy of title, nature of possession of various shares but not for the primary purpose i.e., division of joint properties by metes and bounds.
10. Learned counsel for petitioner relied upon a judgment passed by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Sri Pilla Muniyappa and Others Vs H.Anjanappa 3, wherein it was held as follows:
Document is in nature of partition deed and is required to be compulsorily registered. It was inadmissible in evidence of want of registration 1 (2015) 16 SCC 2 1967 SCC Online AP4 : AIR 1969 AP 242 3 2011 (1) KCCR 314 6 and could not have been relied upon as the basis to claim that there was an earlier partition.
11. In this case, the said document was filed for the purpose of division of family properties by metes and bounds but it was unregistered document and moreover out of which all the parties have not signed the document and it amounts to incomplete document and such document is in-admissible in evidence and such receiving the document and marking of the same is not in proper appreciation of law. Therefore, this Court finds that the order of the trial Court is liable to be set aside.
12. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed by setting aside the order of the trial Court in I.A. No.97 of 2024 in O.S. No.1 of 2021. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________ P. SREE SUDHA, J Date: 15.04.2024 CHS 7 THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA C.R.P. No. 1101 of 2024 DATED: 15.04.2024 CHS