HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4025 of 2009 ORDER: The docket order passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Zaheerabad on 17.06.2009, during the course of chief-examination of PW.1 in O.S.No. 21 of 2008, led the aggrieved plaintiff to file the present revision. When the counsel for defendants 2 to 4 wanted to mark the document styled as partition deed between the parties governing the family properties, including suit properties, dated 11.06.1995, the learned counsel for the plaintiff before the trial Court objected on grounds of want of registration and stamp duty. The document was claimed to be containing the signatures of the plaintiff and Anjaiah, the brother of the plaintiff, and attested by witnesses. Hearing the objection, the trial Court referred to the precedents cited before it and observed that even assuming the document to be liable for stamp duty and penalty, it can still be marked for a collateral purpose as evidencing the status of the parties, though not registered though the document cannot be admitted into evidence to determine the shares and rights of the parties and the trial Court felt that the document in question can be marked for a collateral purpose. However, the trial Court was cautious enough to direct the learned counsel for defendants 2 to 4 to pay the stamp duty on the document in question. The revision petitioner desires to reverse the said order on the ground that the document cannot be marked even for a collateral purpose as it is unregistered and unstamped. Heard Sri M. Rajamalla Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, and Sri B. Nalin Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents. The impugned order is self-explanatory and in so far as the liability of the document in question to registration and stamp duty, the same was recognized by the trial Court and it has, therefore, ordered that before attempting to mark the document through DW.1, the required stamp duty and penalty have to be paid. It is nobody’s case that even without payment of stamp duty and penalty, the document can be admitted into evidence for any purpose. The nature of the document being one of effecting partition between the parties is not in dispute and such a partition deed in respect of immovable properties of value ought to have been registered but it was not registered. The prohibition under Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 does not extend against looking into such a partition deed for a collateral purpose. It is a well settled proposition that needs no reference to a particular precedent. What all the trial Court did was permitting to mark the document for a collateral purpose in the suit not for determination of shares or rights of the parties but only with reference to an indication about the status of the parties vis-à-vis the family properties and suit properties. The order in question, therefore, cannot be considered perverse or illegal and cannot be interfered with in exercise of the restricted revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed without costs. It is needless to observe that mere marking of the document is not proof of it and such marking will always be subject to relevancy and proof. G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date:29.06.2010 usd