Yarramsetti Satyanarayana vs Mutyala Surya Nagaveni
2023 Latest Caselaw 5020 AP

                                     1
                                                                     CMR, J.
                                                           CRP No.355 of 2020




 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

               Civil Revision Petition No.355 of 2020

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition arises out of the order, dated

02.01.2020, passed in O.S.No.226 of 2009 on the file of the

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narasapur, whereby the trial Court

refused to permit the petitioner to mark the document styled as

"Bhoomiki Puraa Parishkara Patramu" as it is inadmissible in

evidence for want of registration.

2) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

counsel for the 1st respondent.

3) For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as

they are arrayed in the plaint.

4) The petitioners are defendants 2 to 5 in O.S.No.226 of 2009

on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narasapur. The 1 st

respondent is the plaintiff in the said Suit. The said Suit was filed

against the defendants by the plaintiff for declaration of the title of

the plaintiff and for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule

property after ejecting the defendants therefrom. According to the

plaintiff, she is the owner of the plaint schedule property and that

CMR, J.

CRP No.355 of 2020

the defendants are in illegal possession of the said property.

Therefore, she has filed the Suit seeking the aforesaid reliefs.

5) At the time of adducing the evidence of the defendants, they

sought to mark a document styled as "Bhoomiki Puraa Parishkara

Patramu", which is an unregistered document, as evidence on

their behalf. According to the defendants, the father of the

plaintiff executed the said document in favour of the father of the

1st defendant and by virtue of the said document, they are in

possession of the said property.

6) As it is an unregistered document, the plaintiff took

objection to mark the said document. The trial Court upheld the

said objection and refused to permit the defendants to mark the

said document as a piece of evidence in their behalf. The trial

Court rejected permission to the petitioners to rely on the

document even for collateral purpose.

7) Therefore, assailing the said order, the instant Civil Revision

Petition is preferred by the defendants 2 to 5.

8) The fact that the defendants have been in possession of the

property is admitted by the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff claims

that the defendants are in illegal possession of the said property

CMR, J.

CRP No.355 of 2020

and thereby sought declaration of the title of the plaintiff in

respect of the plaint schedule property and for recovery of

possession of the same from the defendants. So, when the

possession of the plaint schedule property of the defendants is

admitted by the plaintiff, the said document cannot be received in

evidence for collateral purpose of proving the possession of the

defendants. Now, the defendants are contending that they are in

possession of the said property by virtue of the said document

said to have been executed by the father of the plaintiff in favour

of the father of the 1st defendant. So, in a way, they are claiming

right over the said property by virtue of the said document. To

establish a right or title over the immovable property, an

unregistered document cannot be received in evidence under the

guise of proving a collateral purpose of possession. The collateral

transaction must be independent of or divisible from the

transaction, which the law requires registration. Therefore, the

trial Court rightly rejected the request of the defendants to receive

the said document even for collateral purpose, which is admittedly

an unregistered document relating to an immovable property. The

judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of K.B.Saha

& Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Development Consultant Ltd.1 and the

(2008) 8 SCC 564

CMR, J.

CRP No.355 of 2020

judgments of this Court rendered in the cases of Sakalabhaktula

Lalitha and Boyina Ramesh v. Nandana Ranga Rao (died) Ors. 2

and V. Madhusudhan Rao v. S.Nirmala Bai3, relied on by the

learned counsel for the petitioners, supports the said view. The

defendants cannot rely on the said document for proving their

right over the said property on the pretext of proving a collateral

purpose, more particularly, when the possession of the defendants

is admitted in the Suit.

9) Therefore, the impugned order of the trial Court is perfectly

sustainable under law and it warrants no interference in this

revision.

10) Resultantly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No

costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending if any,

shall stand closed.

________________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Date:16.10.2023.

cs

2012 (3) ALT 1

2019 (3) ALT 79