THE HON’LE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Revision Petition No.258 of 2010 Date: 29-01-2010 Between Pita Jamalaiah … Petitioner and Alapati Boodemma and another … Respondents THE HON’LE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Revision Petition No.258 of 2010 Oral Order: Heard Sri P.Anand Seshu, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision petition is directed against the docket order dated 29-9-2009 in A.T.C.No.6 of 2008 passed by the Special Officer under Andhra Tenancy Act cum II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna district in rejecting to receive the unregistered Tenancy Agreement dated 01-4-2007 entered between the petitioner and respondent No.1 in evidence. 3. The petitioner herein is the tenant, respondent No.1 is the landlady and respondent No.2, who is the son of respondent No.1, is the purchaser of the petition schedule property, in the tenancy case before the Court below. 4. The only grievance is that the tenancy agreement (kowlnama) was rejected to be introduced in evidence on the ground that the same was not registered as postulated under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 and also was not stamped. 5. It is obvious that when a document is not stamped duly, the same is inadmissible in evidence. 6. Of course, so far as the other aspect i.e., non-registration of the document is concerned, if it falls under the exception of Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, the same can be received into the evidence. 7. But, it is to be remembered that the document was not received by the Court below on both the counts i.e., as not registered and also as not duly stamped. Even assuming that the tenant is entitled to introduce the said document, the same has to be rejected on account of deficiency of being not duly stamped. 8. The Court below had recorded a finding that the document is not only registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 but also not stamped. 9. Hence, in any event, when a document is not properly stamped, the same is inadmissible in evidence. In other words, even if the tenant is entitled to have the document introduced as a material document into the evidence, the same has to be rejected on account of its being not duly stamped. 10. To put it in a different way, even if the document can be used for a limited purpose of establishing the possession of the tenant over the petition schedule property, the same is again inadmissible into the evidence because the said document is not duly stamped and has to be eschewed from consideration, as postulated under Section 35 of the Stamp Act, 1899. 11. For the foregoing, I see no ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Court below. 12. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission, confirming the order under revision. ___________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 29th January, 2010. Ak