Telangana High Court
Amaravadi Damodara Chary, vs Dasoju Jagadamba on 6 March, 2024
Author: G.Radha Rani
Bench: G.Radha Rani
THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3747 OF 2023
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner-petitioner-
defendant aggrieved by the order dated 28.11.2023 passed in I.A. No.528
of 2023 in O.S. No.98 of 2011 by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class cum
Junior Civil Judge, Nakrekal.
2. The case in brief was that the respondent-plaintiff filed the suit
seeking the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule
house. While the matter was pending, the defendant filed I.A. No.528 of
2023, under Section 139 of CPC, stating that he purchased the suit house
under a simple sale deed dated 24.09.1995 and since then he was in
possession of the same. The simple sale deed was drafted on a stamp paper
of Rs.20/- and delivery of possession was recorded. Due to illiteracy and
not knowing the legal consequences, he could not get register the said
document. He was required to pay stamp duty and penalty to mark the same
in evidence even for collateral purpose. Therefore, it was necessary to send
the simple sale deed dated 24.09.1995 to the District Registrar, Nalgonda,
for collecting necessary stamp duty and penalty. If the document was not
impounded and marked as exhibit, he would be put to irreparable loss.
Dr.GRR,J
3. The respondent-plaintiff filed counter in the said petition
contending that the alleged document was filed at the fag end of the trial
and the evidence on the side of the plaintiff was closed long back. The suit
pertained to the year 2011. The petitioner-defendant filed the petition to
receive the proposed document in the year 2023. The said document was
not admissible in evidence as the stamp duty and penalty were liable to be
paid on it and it was compulsorily registrable as per Section 17 of the
Registration Act. The affidavit and the petition were silent as to why the
proposed document was not filed during the pendency of the suit for all
these years.
4. The learned Junior Civil Judge, Nakrekal, observing that the
document sought to be sent for impounding was not the original simple sale
deed but was a certified copy of the document obtained from O.S.No.99 of
2011, the petitioner-defendant nowhere pleaded in the petition as to where
the original document was and as to what happened to the original and it
was also not his case that the original document in O.S. No.99 of 2011 was
lost or mis-placed while in the custody of the court, as per the petitioner-
defendant, the original document was taken back from the file without
paying sufficient stamp duty. As such, the burden would lie upon the
Dr.GRR,J
petitioner to produce the original simple sale deed for sending the same to
the District Registrar for impounding and collection of stamp duty, declined
the relief sought by the petitioner-defendant.
5. Aggrieved by the said dismissal order, the defendant preferred
this civil revision petition contending that the original simple sale deed
dated 24.09.1995 was mis-placed in the court. The court gave a certified
copy as such, the photocopy also can be sent for impounding the document
as per the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Kasireddy
Satyanarayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1 and prayed to set aside the
impugned order dated 28.11.2023 passed in I.A. No.528 of 2021 in O.S.
No.98 of 2011 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Nakrekal.
6. Heard Sri G.L. Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri Koya Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the
respondent.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that O.S.No.99 of
2011 was filed by the petitioner-defendant and the original document of the
simple sale deed dated 24.09.1999 was filed in the said suit. As per the
endorsement of the returned document (list of documents docket) in the
2021 (5) ALT 531
Dr.GRR,J
suit, it would reflect that the document of sale deed/sadabynama was taken
by the counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff. It should be given to the party,
but not to the counsel, as such, it was the mistake of the court, and relied
upon the judgment of the High Court of A.P. in Kasireddy Satyanarayana
case (cited supra).
8. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand,
contended that there was no illegality in the order of the learned Junior
Civil Judge to set aside the same. The learned Junior Civil Judge, on
considering the ratio of the judgment in Kasireddy Satayanarayana case,
relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant only passed a
reasonable order. The same would not require any inference by this Court
and prayed to dismiss the petition.
9. Perused the record. Now the document sought to be sent for
impounding by the petitioner-defendant was not the original document, but
was a certified copy of the same, filed in O.S.No.99 of 2011 on the file of
the Junior Civil Judge, Nakrekal. The petitioner-defendant admittedly had
not stated the reasons in his petition filed under Section 139 of CPC as to
what happened to the original document or that it was mis-placed in the
custody of the court. No action was taken by the petitioner against his
counsel or the person, who received the original sale deed filed in O.S.
Dr.GRR,J
No.99 of 2011. As such, his contention that the document ought to have
been returned to the party, but not to his counsel cannot be considered. The
document which required stamp duty and penalty should not be returned
even to the party. But, however, as the said document was taken back by
the counsel representing the party, the certified photostat copy of the said
document cannot be sent for impounding as rightly observed by the learned
Junior Civil Judge.
10. The High Court of A.P. in Kasireddy Satyanarayana case
held that "if the original document was duly stamped and lost in the hands
of the party, he may produce its copy in court and seek to admit the same as
secondary evidence on proving that the original was lost. However, if the
original document was not duly stamped, the party relying on its copy
cannot seek the court to validate the copy by paying stamp and penalty and
admit in evidence".
11. The learned Junior Civil Judge observed that the original
document, the simple sale deed dated 24.09.1995, was not duly stamped
and the petitioner-defendant filed the certified copy of the above document
obtained from O.S No.99 of 2011 without even exhibiting the said
document, as such, rightly held that he could not seek the relief to send the
certified photostat copy of the simple sale deed to the Registrar for
Dr.GRR,J
impounding the same. This Court does not find any illegality in the order of
the trial court in this regard.
12. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed
confirming the order dated 28.11.2023 passed in I.A. No.528 of 2023 in
O.S. No.98 of 2011 by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class cum Junior
Civil Judge, Nakrekal. No costs.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________
Dr. G.RADHA RANI, J
March 06, 2024
KTL
