Unknown vs Korunkonda Anapurna Sampath ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 5116 AP

      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

           CIVIL REVISION PETITON No.2850 of 2019

ORDER:-

      The respondents herein had filed O.S.No.227 of 2009 in

the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur for

partition of the suit schedule property.

2. The respondents are the brothers of the petitioners

herein. The case of the respondents is that their father late Sri

Vegi Subba Rao had been the head of the joint family, consisting

of the petitioners and respondents along with late Sri V.Subba

Rao. There was an oral division of the joint family property in

the year 1982, under which the coparceners were allotted

shares. However, the 2nd petitioner, who is the daughter of the

family was married to her maternal uncle in 1972 and as such,

was not allotted any share in the property. According to the

respondents, an extent of Ac.11.60 cents fell to the share of Sri

V.Subba Rao, who was the father of the petitioners and

respondents. As late Sri V.Subba Rao passed away on

30.12.1996, and his wife, who is the mother of the parties to the

petition Smt. A.Sundaramma died on 06.01.2009, the said land

needs to be partitioned into four equal shares with one share

being allotted to each of the parties to the suit.

3. The petitioners herein, as defendants set up an

alternative case that the 2nd petitioner was a hearing and speech

challenged person due to which she remained unmarried and as

RRR,J CRP.No.2850 of 2019

the 1st petitioner was looking after all the affairs, thereafter,

their father had expressed a desire that the property should

remain in this branch and subsequently his mother

Smt.V.Sundarmma having seen the way in which he was taking

care of the 2nd petitioner, had executed three settlement deeds,

settling all the property in his name and the settlement deeds

are correct.

4. After pleadings had been completed, the matter was

taken up for trial. At that stage, the petitioners sought to bring

a "vatalajabitha" dated 16.05.1982. The petitioners herein had

filed I.A.No.208 of 2018 on the ground that the said

vatalajabitha, which is a partition deed, is unstamped and as

such, stamp duty and penalty need to be paid on the said

document for which, the document needs to be sent to the

District Registrar for a determination as to the stamp duty and

penalty payable. The respondents herein had filed a counter to

that application contending that there was no such document

executed between the parties and in any event even if the stamp

fee is paid on the said document, it would remain inadmissible

as it would also require registration.

5. The trial Court after hearing both sides had sent the

document to the District registrar and the stamp duty and

penalty determined by the District Registrar was paid and the

document was stamped.

6. Thereafter, the petitioners herein sought to mark the

said document. At that stage, the respondents herein took the

RRR,J CRP.No.2850 of 2019

objection that the said document cannot be marked as it is not

registered.

7. The petitioners contended that the document was

properly stamped and the sole object of marking the document

was only to prove that there was a partition and as such, it

would be for a collateral purpose and the document would be

admissible.

8. The respondents objected to the marking of the

document contending that the sole object of the document is to

prove the partition of the shares of each of the parties and as

such, the purpose of marking the document cannot be treated

as a collateral purpose.

9. The trial Court after considering the contentions of

both sides, had passed an order dated 13.06.2019 holding that

the partition list dated 15.05.1982 is inadmissible in evidence

as marking it is not for a collateral purpose.

10. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have

approached this Court, by way of the present civil revision

petition.

11. Sri M.Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the

petitioners would rely upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court dated 01.10.2021 in Korukonda Chalapathi

Rao & Another Vs Korunkonda Anapurna Sampath Kumar.,

to contend that Khararnama can be marked as evidence.

RRR,J CRP.No.2850 of 2019

12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case

had reviewed the law relating to family settlements and the

requirement of registration and payment of stamp duty on such

document. The Hon'ble Supreme Court noticing the Judgments

of Kale vs Deputy Director of Consolidation1., and Sita Ram

Bhama Vs.Ramvatar Bhama2, had re-iterated the principle set

out in those Judgments, that, a family settlement which creates

rights among the members of the family would require to be

stamped and registered while a family settlement or

memorandum of partition which only records past partitions or

settlements does not require to be stamped or registered.

13. In the present case, the petitioners themselves had

voluntarily offered to pay stamp duty. This offer has apparently

come about as the petitioners themselves were of the view that

stamp duty needs to be paid. This concession was obviously

given on account of the fact that the vatalajabitha was a

document which created the rights among the parties.

14. This view is further forfeited, by the approach of the

petitioners in seeking to mark the document after payment of

stamp duty. The pleadings in the application and the

submission recorded by the trial Court would show that the

petitioners were not contending that the vatalajabitha is merely

a record of past rights and does not require stamp or

registration. On the other hand, the contention of the petitioners

was that even though the document requires registration, such

AIR 1976 SC 807

(2018) 15 SCC 130

RRR,J CRP.No.2850 of 2019

an unregistered document can still be marked, if it is for a

collateral purpose.

15. The contention of the respondents that the purpose

of marking the vatalajabitha was not for a collateral purpose

and was for the purpose of demonstrating the partition and the

shares and terms of the said partition merits acceptance.

16. The respondents, in their plaint, have admitted that

there was a partition of the joint family in the year 1982. In

view of the said admission, there was no further requirement to

prove that there was a partition by marking the vatalajabitha.

The dispute appears to be more on the question of the terms of

the said partition. It is the case of the respondents that the

father of the parties to the suit had retained about Ac.11.00

cents of his share in the partition and the said property would

have to be divided into four parts on account of the demise of

both the mother and father of the parties to the suit. On the

other hand, it is the case of the petitioners herein, that even

though the father had been given some property, the said

property was given to the 1st petitioner in deference to the

wishes of the father and the mother. In such circumstances,

the only purpose for marking the vatalajabitha would be to

demonstrate the terms of the partition which definitely cannot

be termed as a collateral purpose.

17. In the circumstances, the order of the trial Court

that the vatalajabitha cannot be marked as it is unregistered

document cannot be found fault with.

RRR,J CRP.No.2850 of 2019

18. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this Civil

Revision Petitions shall stand closed.

___________________________________ JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO Date : 10-12-2021 RJS

RRR,J CRP.No.2850 of 2019

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

CIVIL REVISION PETITON No.2850 of 2019

Date : 10-12-2021

RJS