THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4240 of 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to revise the order dated 01.08.2011 passed by the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada in O.S.No.925 of 2010. The petitioner/plaintiff filed the above suit for permanent injunction. When two documents, namely, awards passed by the Lok Adalat in O.S.No.1394 of 2009 and O.S.No.665 of 2010 were sought to be marked, the respondent/defendant raised an objection stating that the said documents are inadmissible in evidence for want of stamp duty and registration. The Court below, after hearing both sides and considering the material available on record, held that the awards passed by the Lok Adalat in the aforementioned suits require stamp duty and registration. Admittedly, O.S.No.1394 of 2009 was filed by one Kolli Tulasamma against the petitioner to direct him to vacate the plaint schedule property and to deliver vacant possession of the same to her and for future damages, whereas O.S.No.665 of 2010 was filed by the petitioner against Kolli Tulasamma and Kolli Raja Gopala Reddy seeking permanent injunction restraining them, their men, agents and representatives from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and for other reliefs. Both cases were referred to Lok Adalat and the Lok Adalat passed awards in the said suits, wherein Kolli Tulasamma, who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.1394 of 2009 had acknowledged and confirmed that the defendant i.e., the petitioner herein is the full and absolute owner of the suit schedule property and that she is not having any claim or interest or right or title or possession therein. Similarly, in O.S.No.665 of 2010 also the said Tulasamma had acknowledged and confirmed the petitioner’s right over the suit schedule property. Further, in O.S.No.1394 of 2009 filed by the said Tulasamma, it has been stated that she made an oral gift in favour of the petitioner herein and by virtue of the same, he came into possession of the property and he is in uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the property since 1995 and she also confirmed that the petitioner constructed RCC building in the suit schedule property in the year 1997 with his self earnings. The same has been confirmed under the awards. There is a plea that the petitioner has pre-existing right under an oral gift deed, as confirmed under the awards. Since no title will pass on to the donee or a right can be accrued over a property under an oral gift, unless it is properly stamped and registered, he cannot claim any pre-existing right under the oral gift. Therefore, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Som Dev and others v. Rati Ram and another[1], which is relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is misplaced to the facts of the present case. In view of the same, the lower Court rightly upheld the objection raised by the respondent/defendant. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. Since the present suit is filed for permanent injunction, it is always open for the petitioner to prove his possession over the property from 1995 and substantiate the same by adducing evidence. _________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J Date: 11.11.2011 va [1] (2006) 10 Supreme Court Cases 788