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.
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
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
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
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
(2015) 16 SCC
1967 SCC Online AP4 : AIR 1969 AP 242
2011 (1) KCCR 314
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
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
DATED: 15.04.2024
CHS
