HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 5069 OF 2009 Friday, the thirtieth day of October, Two Thousand and Nine Between Syed Thaver Aly Husayn Petitioner AND Smt. Zainab Jehan Begum and others Respondents THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. NO. 5069 OF 2009 ORAL ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the defendant in O.S. No. 171 of 2007 on the file of the III Addl. Rent Controller- cum-XV Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad, aggrieved by marking of Exs. A-1, A-12, A-14 and A-16 on behalf of the plaintiffs – respondents herein without recording the objection raised by learned counsel for the defendant – petitioner herein. The first respondent who is wife and the respondents 2 to 4 who are their daughters and son, have filed the above suit for injunction contending that the plaintiff purchased the property out of her savings, which is denied by the defendant – petitioner herein in the written statement. The plaintiff filed chief examination wherein the Memorandum of gift claiming to be in lieu of meher i.e., Dower is sought to be exhibited apart from other documents, which is objected to by the defendant contending that gift in lieu of meher is a compulsorily registrable document under Sec. 17 of the Stamp and Registration Act. But the court below without recording the objection raised by the defendant, had marked the documents as Exs. A-1, A-12, A-14 and A-16, which, according to the learned counsel for the defendant are inadmissible in evidence. Aggrieved thereby the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the court below ought not to have marked the oral gift, which is inadmissible in evidence in view of the settled position of law. As can be seen from the material on record, on 12.3.1997 the petitioner had executed Memorandum of Oral Gift confirming the oral gift dated 2.10.1994. Without expressing any opinion on merits or otherwise of the contentions raised, suffice it to observe that the validity or otherwise of the documents which are sought to be marked by the plaintiffs – respondents herein can be well decided at the conclusion of the trial. Therefore, while granting liberty to the defendant to agitate the relevancy or otherwise of those documents, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari October 30, 2009 MAS