IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST (21ST) DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRP No.1144 of 2009 Between: Mir Ahmed Ali … Petitioner And: A.P. State Wakf Board, rep. by its Secretary Haj House Complex, Hyderabad & another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRP No.1144 of 2009 ORDER: This revision petition is directed against the docket order dated 02.02.2009 in OS No.69 of 1999 on the file of the A.P. State Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad, wherein, the objection raised by the defendants for marking lease deed dated 12.11.1972 on the ground that it was insufficiently stamped, was sustained. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner herein filed suit OS No.69 of 1999 for declaration of title that the plaintiff is the joint owner and pattadar of Ac.4.15 guntas in Sy.No.222, Ac.8.18 guntas in Sy.No.223/1 and Ac.14.47 guntas in Sy.No.412, totaling Ac.26.47 guntas, situated at Kalvakunta village, Sangareddy Taluq and also for permanent injunction. The defendants filed written statement contesting the suit and inter-alia contending that the suit lands are inam lands and mosque munthakhab wakf notified by Tahsildar in the erstwhile Hyderabad Government in Gazette dated 24.02.1955. When the matter was taken up for trial, certain documents were being marked through the evidence of plaintiff, who was examined as PW.1 and the lease deed dated 12.11.1972 was sought to be exhibited, for which the defendants raised objection. 4. A perusal of the said document (translated copy) would show that it was a lease for a period of five years from 12.11.1972 to 11.11.1977 for lease amount of Rs.700/-. The document stipulates various other conditions. As the said lease is for a period exceeding one year and is in respect of immoveable property, the same requires stamp duty under the provisions of the Stamp Act. 5. Section 35 of the Stamp Act mandates that no instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the document sought to be filed was previously filed in an earlier litigation and the said document is required to show that the suit property is not the wakf property. Whatever purpose for which the document is sought to be filed, when once it is found that it is chargeable with duty, the same cannot be admitted in evidence in view of the specific bar contained under Section 35 of the Stamp Act, unless, the stamp duty and penalty is paid and defect is cured. 6. In the circumstances, the impugned order sustaining the objection raised over the admissibility of the suit document is held not liable to be interfered with. 7. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. The interim stay granted earlier stands vacated. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 21.02.2011 bss