THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH C.R.P.No.3677 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner herein is the defendant in the suit in O.S.No.159 of 2009 filed by the respondent herein on the file of the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, for recovery of a sum of Rs.4,98,400/- basing on the pronote said to have been executed by one Pilli Hanumaiah. The said Pilli Hanmaiah died on 01-04-2007. The petitioner being the brother of the deceased’s wife succeeded the estate of the deceased. Therefore, the said suit is filed for recovery of money against the petitioner herein, as the deceased estate is in the hands of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the original borrower Pilli Hanumaiah never executed pro-note and the said pro-note is a rank forgery and that he is not the legal heir of Pilli Hanumaiah. It is further stated that Pilli Hanumaiah executed an unregistered gift deed in favour of Mahendra Venkataswamy Devastanam Committee on 03-05-2005 and it contains the signature of Pilli Hanumaiah. The petitioner wants to mark the said document for comparing the signature of Pilli Hanumaiah on the gift deed with that of the pronote. Admittedly, the said gift deed is not duly stamped and registered. The court below vide its order, dated 14-06-2010, held that unless stamp duty and penalty are paid, the same cannot be received as evidence, even for collateral purpose, while distinguishing the judgment of this Court in PUDI BALARAJU Vs. JALLU ANNAPOORNA[1]. The facts of the aforesaid decision are not applicable to the case on hand, as the aforesaid case relates to declaration of title, in which an unregistered partition deed was sought to be received as collateral purpose for proving the division of status alone. In the instant case, it is for the defendant to adduce independent evidence to establish that the pronote is a forged one and the signature on the pronote does not belong to Pilli Hanumaiah. Admittedly, the gift deed is not duly stamped and registered and the signature contained on the gift deed is not admitted by the plaintiff and, as such, the question of receiving the said document for comparing the signature of Pilli Hanumaiah does not arise. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the court below had rightly rejected the request of the petitioner. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity legal or otherwise in the impugned order, so as to call for interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 27-08-2011 Prv [1] 2003 (6) ALD 257