IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4893 of 2011 Between: Raghava Reddy & 5 others .. Petitioners AND Dyapa Parwathamma & another .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4893 of 2011 ORDER: The civil revision petition is directed against the order on memo in C.F.R.No.2766 of 2011, dated 05.08.2011, in O.S.No.180 of 2007, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge’s Court, at Mahabubnagar. 2. The defendants in the suit filed the memo requesting the trial Court to pass orders for admission of a document, dated 24.06.1974, into evidence. The suit was filed for partition and separate possession on division of the suit properties into three equal shares and allotment of one share to the plaintiffs. The document was stated to be Family Settlement Deed (Uddabandi) and referring to the request for receiving the document into evidence subject to any objection which can be determined during the final judgment, the plaintiffs expressed their opposition contending that the genuineness and admissibility of the document written on a white paper in respect of family properties are disputed. The trial Court referred to the contents of the document and the precedents cited before it and opined that the unstamped document is inadmissible in evidence until and unless stamp duty and penalty are paid. Therefore, it held that the document which is unstamped and unregistered is not open to be marked as an exhibit in evidence unless stamp duty and penalty are paid as per the law and the rules. 3. The said order is under challenge in the civil revision petition contending that the document ought to have been marked subject to objection which can be determined at the time of the final judgment. The document could have been admitted into evidence for a collateral purpose of proving partition and possession and the Family Settlement Deed was acted upon by the parties and the share of the land of the plaintiffs was sold and the sale was validated under the Record of Rights Act, 1971, which had attained finality. The genuineness of the contents of the document could not have been gone into even without receiving the same into evidence and, therefore, the trial Court went beyond its scope and jurisdiction. Hence, the revision petitioners/the defendants desired the impugned order to be reversed. 4. Heard Sri T. Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioners at the stage of admission. 5. The point for consideration is whether the impugned order is liable to be interfered with in the revision. 6. The document in question is dated 24.06.1974 and was executed between Goli Rangamma, Goli Laxmamma, Goli Laxma Reddy, Goli Chandra Reddy and Goli Narayan Reddy of Cherkur Village regarding the land in the names of their father and uncle. They stated that the five of them had, in the presence of elders, agreed and had written the Uddabandi. The document then referred to the lands allotted to each of the five persons with reference to the survey numbers and extents. Then the document proceeded to state that as per the shares, they should cultivate the respective lands from that date paying land revenue to the Government and enjoying their respective lands. They also agreed that from that date, they shall not make any objections concerning the shares of others. The parties also agreed to bear the respective expenses for enforcement of the document. The document, signed by the five participants in the division, had also the attestation by attestors. 7. The plain and unambiguous language of the document in question, thus, shows that the five persons, who got their respective shares in the lands specified under the document, made the division under the document itself in the presence of elders and had been put in separate possession of their respective shares under the document itself. On the plain and unambiguous language of the document, it could not have been construed as a partition list and the document, being the document of partition by itself, is subject to payment of the requisite stamp duty under the provisions of the Stamp Act, 1899, and as it obviously effected rights in immovable properties of the value of more than Rs.100/-, the document is also compulsorily registerable. The enabling principle laid down for receiving any document subject to objection which can be decided during the final judgment cannot erase the absolute prohibition imposed by the provisions of the Stamp Act, 1899, against admission into evidence of any unstamped document. Though the Registration Act, 1908, may permit admissibility of an unregistered document for a collateral purpose, the Stamp Act, 1899, admits of no such exception. The question as to whether the revision petitioners were attempting to admit the document into evidence for a collateral purpose or primary purpose need not be gone into at this stage, as the document is inadmissible for any purpose without the payment of the requisite stamp duty and penalty treating the document as a document of partition. It is only on payment of such stamp duty and penalty that the question arises for consideration by the trial Court as to whether the defendants/revision petitioners are seeking to admit the document into evidence for a collateral purpose or not or to what extent the document can be looked into with reference to the questions in controversy between the parties to the suit. To the extent of the impugned order directing that the document, dated 24.06.1974, which is unstamped and unregistered cannot be marked in evidence as an exhibit unless the stamp duty and penalty is paid as per the rules and the law is concerned, the same is unassailable in revision and consequently, the revision should fail even at the stage of admission. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed without costs at the stage of admission. ___________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 19th December, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4893 of 2011 Date: 16th December, 2011 KL