THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No : 6037 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners herein, who are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.122 of 2005 on the file of the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Jangaon. 2. The suit is filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs for specific performance of agreement of gift. In that suit, the petitioners prayed for impounding of the alleged agreement of gift. The Court below observed in the impugned order that in view of the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, unregistered document effecting immovable property can be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance. While observing so, the Court below permitted the petitioners to impound the document, if they so choose. 3. Sri K.Ashok Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that as there is no transfer of rights and the document in question is only an agreement to transfer, it cannot be impounded, as ordered by the trial Court. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the contents of the document show that it is intended for transfer of rights of the land in question in an extent of 1/3rd share and in view of the same there is no illegality in the order passed by the Court below. In support of his contention, he relied on a judgment of this Court i n MARTHALA RAMACHANDRA REDDY v. MUTYALAPATI PEDDA SUBBANNA @ VENKATA SUBBAMMA AND ANOTHER[1]. 5. It is well settled that the title of the document is not the criteria to examine whether it requires stamp duty or registration etc. 6. I have perused the document, a copy of which is sought to be marked before the trial Court. From a reading of the said document, it is clear that the donor has transferred 1/3rd share allotted to her. In view of the recitals in the document, it cannot be said that no rights are transferred. Further, the decision cited supra, relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent, also supports his case. 7. In view of the reasons recorded by the Court below and for the aforesaid reasons, this Court is in full agreement with the view taken by the Court below. There are no merits in this petition, which warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY ,J 04th August, 2011. Tsy [1] 2006 (1) ALT 132