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
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
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
1999 SCC OnLine AP 438
SKS,J
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.
2002 SCC OnLine AP 1036
SKS,J
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
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
