IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH (8TH) DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.4965 of 2010 Between: Mudunuru Suryanarayana Raju … Petitioner And: Mudunuru Bairagi Raju (died) 7 others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.4965 of 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 28.09.2010 in OS No.688 of 2004 on the file of IV Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), Visakhapatnam, wherein, the objection raised by the plaintiff against receiving and marking the document, styled as ‘khararunama oppudala patram’, was over-ruled. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner herein filed suit for partition of the plaint schedule property into three equal shares and to allot one such share and separate possession to the plaintiff. The respondents/ defendants filed written statement, contesting the suit. During the course of trial, the 2nd defendant produced document styled as ‘khararunama oppudala patram’ and sought to mark the same as exhibit, for which, learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff objected on the ground that the same is un-registered and unstamped. According to the 2nd defendant, the said document was only an agreement incorporating an understanding arrived at by both parties in respect of the partition wall. The said document was executed by the plaintiff in favour of 2nd defendant on 11.10.1983. The document refers to the registered Will dated 07.09.1977 executed by their mother Bangarayamma, under which a tiled house bearing D.No.43-14-6 was conveyed in favour of the plaintiff and 2nd defendant and their another brother Bairagi Raju. It is further stated that in the plan attached to the Will, it was noted as to which portion has to be taken by whom. The source of title for the plaintiff and 2nd defendant in respect of their respective portions of the house is stated in the Will dated 07.09.1977. In the present document dated 11.10.1983, it is stated that in the event of the plaintiff occupying his portion of the house, western wall must be removed and shifted towards east by 4½ ft. But however, as the said alteration would weaken the strength of the building, it is agreed that the wall should be left as it is and 2nd defendant shall retain possession of the said 4½ ft. width and enjoy the same with absolute rights. The document further recites that the plaintiff or his successors will not demand at any time for effecting any alterations to the said wall nor raise any dispute in that regard. It was further agreed that the other aspects shall be implemented as stated in the Will. The plaintiff objected for marking of the above said document on the ground that absolute rights were conveyed in favour of 2nd defendant under the said document by the plaintiff in the site of 4½ ft. width. The respondents/defendants, on the other hand, contended that what the document purports is only an understanding between the plaintiff and 2nd defendant as to the mode of enjoyment of the space of 4½ ft width without disturbing the partition wall so that the strength of the building is not depleted. The learned Senior Civil Judge accepted the said contention of the 2nd defendant and held that the document can be marked for collateral purpose regarding the nature of the possession, as the partition has already taken place. 4. A perusal of the copy of the Will and the plan attached to it would show that the nature and mode of devolution of the building in favour of the plaintiff, 2nd defendant and their brother, in three portions marked as ‘A, B, C’ in the plan is already specified in the Will itself. The disputed document dated 11.10.1983 does not, therefore confer any title on the plaintiff, 2nd defendant and their brother, over the respective portions, which were already bequeathed to them under the Will. It is stated that there is a wall between the portions B and C and removal of the wall would weaken the building and therefore under the disputed document, it was agreed to be left un-disturbed permitting the 2nd defendant to enjoy the site of 4½ ft. width abutting the said wall. The document does not purport conveying any title in favour of 2nd defendant pertaining to the said space of 4½ ft. width and the portion marked as ‘C’ in the plan, which includes the said space of 4½ ft. width already bequeathed in favour of 2nd defendant under the Will. The disputed document, therefore contains only an understanding between the parties i.e., plaintiff and 2nd defendant that the wall in between shall be retained in its present place, without lifting the same towards east and the plaintiff or his successors in interest would not raise any dispute in that regard. The enjoyment of the 2nd defendant over the said space of 4½ ft. width, which is part of portion marked as ‘C’ and which is already bequeathed to him under the Will is only re-affirmed in the document dated 11.10.1983. Thus, the said document does not purport to create, declare, assign or extinguish any title in the said immoveable property and therefore does not fall within the ambit of Section 17 of the Registration Act and hence, does not require compulsory registration. The document, however, being an agreement is required to be duly stamped and deficit Court fee and penalty, if any, leviable, to be paid by the 2nd respondent-2nd defendant before marking the document as exhibit. 5. In the circumstances, it is held that the impugned order over-ruling the objection raised by the plaintiff is not liable to be interfered with. 6. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 08.04.2011 bss