Hanumakonda Ravi Kumar vs Neelam Upendramma
2025 Latest Caselaw 3024 Tel

Telangana High Court

Hanumakonda Ravi Kumar vs Neelam Upendramma on 12 March, 2025

Author: G.Radha Rani

Bench: G.Radha Rani

      THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

          CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1462 of 2019

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the

docket order dated 08.03.2019 passed in O.S.No.100 of 2012 by the learned VII

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal.

2. The petitioner - plaintiff filed O.S.No.100 of 2012 seeking the relief of

permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property, which was an

open plot bearing No.1 in Survey No.258/C to an extent of 402.13 square yards

situated at Thimmapur Revenue Village and Gram Panchayat, Hanumakonda

Mandal, Warangal District.

3. The case of the petitioner - plaintiff was that he purchased the suit

schedule property through registered sale deed document No.2494 of 2007

dated 27.02.2007 from one Shaik Sarwar Miya, S/o.Meera Saheb for a valid

sale consideration with de facto delivery of the same. He was in exclusive

possession and enjoyment of the said property since the date of his purchase.

His vendor Shaik Sarwar Miya purchased the said property from defendant

No.4 through his registered General Power of Attorney (for short "GPA) holder

Pothu Darshanam, S/o.Buchaiah through registered sale deed document

Dr.GRR, J crp_1462_2019

No.3318 of 1993 dated 30.08.1993. The defendant No.4 was the pattadar and

owner of land to an extent of Ac.1-09 guntas including the suit schedule

property and he executed registered GPA in favor of Pothu Darshanam for his

entire extent of land of Ac.1-09 guntas in Survey No.258/C of Thimmapur

village. Subsequently, differences arose between the defendant No.4 and the

GPA holder. The GPA holder sold Ac0-35 guntas in the same survey number

to one Pothu Mahesh Babu and Pothu Mahesh Babu filed O.S.No.1860 of 2006

on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal for permanent

injunction in respect of his purchased land and the same was decreed in his

favor on 23.11.2010. In the said suit, the defendant No.4 in his written

statement disputed execution of registered GPA in favor of Pothu Darshanam

and the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal sent the registered GPA

to finger print expert for opinion and the finger print expert gave report that the

thumb impressions on the registered GPA were of defendant No.4 herein. The

said judgment became final, as no appeal was preferred against it. The

defendants 4 and 6 having suffered the decree in O.S.No.1860 of 2006 were

instigating other defendants to interfere in his peaceful possession and

enjoyment over the suit schedule property.

4. During the course of trial in the said suit, the defendants filed a petition to

receive a deed of settlement - cum - understanding dated 12.06.2012 along with

a petition under Order VII Rule 14(i)(a) of CPC. The affidavit was in printed

Dr.GRR, J crp_1462_2019

format with blanks and the blanks were filled by the deponent. The printed

format would disclose that the deponent i.e. the defendant No.3 Neelam

Sanjeeva alias Sanjeevaiah could not file the same earlier, as he got the said

document recently and the same was necessary to prove his case. The delay

caused in filing the same was not wanton, but due to the said reason and prayed

to condone the delay.

5. The plaintiff filed a counter to the said application raising objection that

the document sought to be marked was a certified copy, which was filed in a

criminal case, which would require stamp duty and penalty and that the

document was inadmissible. The defendant No.3 ought to have taken

permission from the Court to lead evidence under Section 65 of the Indian

Evidence Act, 1872 for filing a certified copy. No proper explanation was given

by the petitioner - defendant No.3 for filing the said document at a belated stage

and no sufficient cause was shown to condone the delay and that the petitioner -

defendant No.3 failed to explain as to how the said document was relevant and

necessary for the proceedings of the case and that the petition was filed in a very

casual manner.

6. The trial court on considering the contentions of both the learned counsel

had passed the docket order on 08.03.2019, as such:

"Heard the learned counsel for either side. Perused the case law filed by counsel for plaintiff. The objection raised for

Dr.GRR, J crp_1462_2019

DW.1 MOD pertains to a general memorandum of understanding. It is neither settlement nor it creating any rights or interests any permeating, which necessitate the registration as per law. Therefore, it cannot be discarded to be admitted in evidence even for collateral purpose. The case law filed by plaintiff is not considered as its facts and circumstances are different with present issue, as it pertains to family settlement document which is to be marked by defendant side pertains to one general dispute occurred in between some third parties to the present suit and this document is clearly demonstrating that it has no right in any kind of property. Hence, the objection raised by the counsel for plaintiff is rejected. The defendant is directed to proceed with DW.1 MOD. Call on 22.03.2019."

7. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned VII Additional Junior

Civil Judge, Warangal, the petitioner - plaintiff preferred this revision.

8. Heard Sri S.Ganesh Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner - plaintiff and

Ms.Bhavana Rao, learned counsel for the respondents - defendants.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the suit was filed for

perpetual injunction basing on the strength of a registered sale deed document

No.2494 of 2007 dated 27.02.2007 from Shaik Sarwar Miya, S/o.Meera Saheb,

who purchased the suit schedule property from respondent No.4 through

registered sale deed document No.3318 of 1993 dated 30.08.1993 through his

GPA holder Pothu Darshanam. Though the respondents admitted the ownership

of respondent No.4, they further contended that respondent No.4 was not the

exclusive owner of the suit schedule property, but it was the ancestral joint

Dr.GRR, J crp_1462_2019

family property of respondents 1 to 8. During the course of evidence, the

respondents filed the document titled as "deed of settlement - cum -

understanding" dated 12.06.2012 executed between Madgula Raj Kumar, S/o.

Rajaiah, Madgula Rajaiah, S/o.Veeraiah and Mirza Rehman Baig, S/o.Mirza

Afzal Baig, for marking of which the petitioner objected, as the same required

Stamp Duty and Registration under Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act,

1908. But the trial court rejected the said objection raised by the petitioner.

The order passed by the trial court was erroneous since the settlement of

property in favor of parties was creating right or interest and would require

Stamp Duty and Registration. The trial court erroneously held that the said

document pertained to a general dispute between third parties. In fact, if the

document was read carefully, the second party alleged to have purchased the

said property from respondent No.1, thus creating right in favor of respondent

No.1. The alleged Pothu Darshanam, who dismantled the house of second

party, was the GPA holder of respondent No.4, through whom the petitioner's

vendor purchased. Thus, the respondents were trying to demonstrate that the

person, who sold to the petitioner have admitted in the agreement that the

respondent No.1 was the owner of the suit schedule property. The trial court

ought to have seen that as per the terms of deed of settlement - cum -

understanding, the first party agreed to construct the said house with their

expenditure within three months from that date. Any agreement to construct a

Dr.GRR, J crp_1462_2019

house also requires Stamp Duty under Section 6-B of Schedule 1-A of the

Stamp Act. 1899. As such, the order passed by the trial court was erroneous,

contrary to law and facts of the case and prayed to set aside the docket order

dated 08.03.2019 passed in O.S.No.100 of 2012 by the learned VII Additional

Junior Civil Judge, Warangal.

10. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand supported the

order passed by the trial court on the ground that the document was between

third parties, but not between the parties to the suit and it pertains to a family

settlement, which would not require Stamp Duty and Penalty or Registration.

No rights were created or extinguished by the said agreement or settlement

between the parties, which necessitates any registration as per law and prayed to

dismiss the revision.

11. Perused the record.

12. As seen from the record, the document - "deed of settlement - cum -

understanding" was sought to be filed by the defendants. But the petition was

filed under Order VII Rule 14(i)(a) of CPC under a wrong provision. Order VII

Rule 14(i)(a) of CPC pertains to the documents to be filed by the plaintiffs. The

defendants have to file the documents under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) of CPC.

The parties need to file the documents relied by them along with their pleadings.

When they file their documents at a subsequent stage during the course of trial,

Dr.GRR, J crp_1462_2019

they need to satisfactorily explain as to why they could not file the same along

with their pleadings. The affidavit filed by defendant No.3 was in a printed

format, filed in the way of filling up the blanks. No proper reasons were given

by defendant No.3, as to why the said document could not be filed along with

his written statement. The document - "deed of settlement - cum -

understanding" was said to be executed on 12.06.2012. The suit was filed on

31.01.2012. But the document was not filed till 13.12.2018. No justifiable

reasons were given for filing the said document with such inordinate delay. The

document - "deed of settlement - cum - understanding" was also stated to be

executed between Madgula Raj Kumar, Madgula Rajaiah and Mirza Rehman

Baig. None of them were parties to the present suit. It was also pertaining to

destruction of a house property bearing No.6-44/1 (old), 6-63/1 (new) with open

land admeasuring an extent of 622 square yards comprised in Survey No.258/C

alleged to have purchased by the second party i.e. Mirza Rehman Baig vide

registered sale deed document No.2752 of 1998 dated 27.08.1998 from his

vendor Smt. Neelam Upendramma (the respondent No.1 herein). The entire

property pertaining to this suit is an open land in plot No.1 in Survey No.258/C

to an extent of 402.13 square yards. It was not specified as to how the deed of

settlement - cum - understanding is relevant to the issue in the present case. No

explanation was given by defendant No.3 in the affidavit as to how the said

document is relevant to decide the issue pertaining to this suit. As per the

Dr.GRR, J crp_1462_2019

objection taken by the plaintiffs, the document sought to be marked was a

certified copy and the original of it was filed in a criminal case. The said

document requires Stamp Duty and Penalty, and Stamp Duty cannot be

collected on a certified copy. As such, the original document needs to be filed

even if the defendants were relying upon the same. As per the contention of the

learned counsel for the revision petitioner - plaintiff, no permission was taken

from the Court for not producing primary evidence and for leading secondary

evidence under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

13. As seen from the contents of the disputed document, on 10.06.2012 at

about 10:30 PM, the first party i.e. Madgula Rajkumar and Madgula Rajaiah

along with Pothu Darshanam came to the house of second party i.e. Mirza

Rehman Baig and dismantled the said house at ground level without any right or

title over the said house. The second party on knowing the same approached

the first party and demanded them as to why they had dismantled the said

house, for which they revealed that there was dispute with their erstwhile

vendor Neelam Sanjeevaiah and other vendors. Due to oversight and mistake,

the first party dismantled the house of second party, for which mediation took

place and the subject matter was settled as follows:

"1) The first party agreed to construct the said house with their expenditure within three months from today.

Dr.GRR, J crp_1462_2019

2) On failing of above said construction, the first party is liable for penal consequences and damages."

14. The contention of the learned counsel for the revision petition was that

the said document contemplates construction of a house, which required Stamp

Duty as per Article 6-B of Schedule 1-A of the Stamp Act.

15. As seen from Schedule 1-A of the Stamp Act, Article 6 pertains to

agreement of memorandum of an agreement - not otherwise provided for:

Article No. Description of Property Proper Stamp Duty

6 (B) If relating to construction of a Five rupees for every one house or building including a hundred rupees or part thereof multi-unit house or building or on the market value or the unit of apartment / flat / portion estimated cost of the proposed of multi-stored building or for construction / development of development / sale of any other such property as the case may immovable property. be, as mentioned in the agreement or the value arrived at in accordance with the schedule of rates prescribed by the Public Works Department Authorities, whichever is higher.

16. Thus, the memorandum of agreement pertaining to construction of a

house requires Stamp Duty to be paid upon it. The trial court ought to have

considered the objection raised by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, as stamp

duty could not be collected on a certified copy of a document, The petition was

also filed under a wrong provision without providing justifiable reasons for

Dr.GRR, J crp_1462_2019

filing the document with an inordinate delay of more than six years. The

objection with regard to the stamp duty was not considered by the trial court.

No reasons were assigned by the trial court whether the document requires a

stamp duty or not. The document sought to be filed is a certified copy. No

foundation was laid down for adducing secondary evidence. The original

document is required to be filed in the Civil Court, wherein the objections with

regard to stamp duty and registration need to be considered. As the trial court

without considering all these aspects, had allowed the application, the same is

erroneous.

17. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the

docket order dated 18.03.2019 passed in O.S.No.100 of 2012 by the learned VII

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal.

No order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this petition, if any,

shall stand closed.

____________________ Dr. G.RADHA RANI, J Date: 12th March, 2025 Nsk