IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5787 of 2008 Between: Teli Laxminarayana & 8 others .... PETITIONERS And Ramagiri Bixapathi ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5787 OF 2008 ORDER: 1. This is defendant’s revision aggrieved by the order of the trial court permitting the plaintiff to mark unregistered sale deed dated 23.01.1983 duly noting the objection of the petitioners and subject to final adjudication of the said objection at the time of delivering judgment in the main suit. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit filed by the respondent is for permanent injunction and that the respondent/plaintiff seeks to claim title to the property based upon the aforesaid unregistered sale deed. When the said document was sought to be marked during the evidence of the plaintiff, the petitioner’s counsel objected thereto and after hearing both sides, the court below has passed the impugned order. Learned counsel submits that when the aforesaid unregistered document is a sale deed, it is inadmissible on the ground of deficiency in stamp as well as non-registration. Sofar as the deficiency in stamp is concerned, the document was impounded and the stamp duty along with penalty appears to have been paid as per the endorsement of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 27.11.2003. However, the objection regarding non-registration is incurable and the same remains. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited on two decisions of this court, Ranga Reddy vs. Sadhu Padamma and others[1] and Shaik Khadaru Masthan vs. Sayyed Fathimun Bee[2], and submits that even for collateral purpose, the said document cannot be marked. The court below has followed another decision of this court, Mulla Alamsabgari Dastigiri, Kurnool vs. B. Pullamma and others[3], which inturn was based upon the decision of the Supreme Court in State, through Special Cell, New Delhi vs. Navjot Sandhu @ Afshan Guru and others[4]. It is to be noticed that two decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner as referred to above are both cases of gift deed and it was held that the said document would not fall under third exception in Proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act. 4. In the case of gift deed, therefore, the consideration would be different inasmuch as there will be no other collateral purpose other than factum gift deed. Whereas in case of a sale deed, the same can be looked into for collateral purpose under the Proviso to Section 49 aforesaid. I, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the impugned order as the order itself makes it clear that the marking of the said document is for the purpose of identification only and all objections raised by the defendant shall be gone into while delivering the judgment in the suit itself. The marking of the said document for collateral purpose, therefore, being permissible and the rights and objections of the petitioner/defendant having been kept in tact under the impugned order, it does not deserve any inference. 5. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Since the trial of suit of 2003 was held up, now, the trial Court shall proceed with trial expeditiously and decide the suit before 31.12.2010. ________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J August 03, 2010 KL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. No.5787 OF 2008 August 03, 2010 KL [1] 2003 (1) ALT 228 [2] 2007 (6) ALD 482 [3] 2004 (4) ALD 82 [4] 2003 (1) DT (SC) 490