Telangana High Court
Gujjula Laxmi 3 Others vs The Land Acquisition Officer 4 ... on 5 July, 2022
Bench: Sambasivarao Naidu
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4714 of 2013
ORDER :
This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners
against the Order in I.A.No.865 of 2013 in L.A.O.P.No. 7 of
2012 on the file of Senior Civil Judge at Jangaon.
2. The learned for the petitioners submitted that the
Court below denied the prayer of the petitioners to receive a
document which was properly impounding.
The petitioners herein have paid the required stamp duty
and penalty on the unregistered sale deed; therefore,
it can be received in evidence for the collateral purpose of
establishing the possession of the petitioners. While relying
on the judgment reported in 2019 CJ (HYD) 253 in between
Smt.Kamala Devi, W/o.Raghunandan Tiwari V/s Y.Anthi
Reddy, S/o.Y.Raji, the learned counsel for the petitioners
sought for allowing the Revision Petition.
3. The point for consideration is :
Whether the document i.e., unregistered sale deed
can be received in evidence?
2 SSRN,J
CRP.4714 of 2013
4. Point :
The petitioners herein are claimants 1 to 4 in
L.A.O.P.No.7 of 2012 and as per the claim statement filed
before the Court below it was their case that they lost an
extent of Ac.3.21 guntas in two (2) survey numbers when
Government acquired land for Indiramma Housing
programme. They have claimed that they are their legal heirs
and successors of late Gujjula Anjaiah who is having
Ac.1.32 gts by way of patta. The 3rd petitioner/claimant No.3
was exclusive owner and possessor of Ac.1.30 guntas of
patta land.
5. The petitioners have filed I.A.No.865 of 2013 under
Order VIII Rule 14 (3) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,
seeking permission to file and mark the unregistered sale
deed dated 14.09.1995 and for receiving proceedings of
D.R.O., Warangal, dated 10.09.2013, Challan receipt dated
16.09.2013, R.O.R and Title Deed, as they wanted to mark
those documents to prove the ownership and title of the
2nd petitioner/claimant No.2.
3 SSRN,J
CRP.4714 of 2013
6. The Court below having accepted the contention with
regard to the other documents, refused to receive the
unregistered sale deed by placing reliance on judgment of
High Court in Vengalapudi Manga vs Paluri Kanna Bai,
(2013 (2) LS 180). As per the above said judgment, it was the
observation of the High Court that an unregistered sale
deed, which requires compulsory registration under Section
17 of the Registration Act, cannot be received in evidence to
establish title to the suit property. It may be a fact that an
unregistered document, which is impounded, can be
produced in evidence for collateral purpose of proving
possession, but in the case on hand; the very purpose of
producing impounded document is to establish their title
over the property, which is subject matter of LAOP. The very
purpose of producing the said unregistered sale deed is to
show that the said Anjaiah has got title over an extent of
Ac.1.31 gts. The petitioners herein wanted to show that they
got title over the said extent through Anjaiah who said to
have purchased the property through this unregistered sale
deed. Therefore, the purpose is to prove the title but not
possession as argued by the counsel. As per section 17 of
4 SSRN,J
CRP.4714 of 2013
Registration Act, 1908 sale deed requires compulsory
registration. Therefore, the document cannot be received
since it is not a registered document. As such, there are no
merits and revision is liable to be dismissed.
7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
8. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stands
closed.
___________________________________
JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU
Dt.05.07.2022.
Krl.
5 SSRN,J
CRP.4714 of 2013
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU
C.R.P.No.4714 OF 2013
DATE : 05-07-2022
krl
