THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4341 OF 2010 DATED JUNE, 2011 BETWEEN Smt.Siddam Naga Lakshumma …Petitioner And Shaik Shavali and another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4341 OF 2010 O R D E R The petitioner in R.C.C.No.1 of 2009 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa, filed this revision aggrieved by the order dated 14.07.2010 passed therein whereby the unregistered gift deed dated 17.08.1983 produced by the second respondent was held to be admissible in evidence for collateral purpose on payment of stamp duty and penalty. This Court, while ordering notice before admission in the Civil Revision Petition, granted interim stay of all further proceedings for six weeks by order dated 27.09.2010. The said order was extended on 12.11.2010 by four weeks and on 20.12.2010 status quo existing as on that day was directed to be maintained until further orders. Perusal of the order under challenge reflects that the trial Court dealt with the matter in an utmost casual and perfunctory manner. So much so, that the decree passed by the trial Court along with the order reads to the effect that the R.C.C. itself is allowed and not the I.A. filed by the second respondent. It appears that the trial Court did not even number the said I.A. before passing the order. Apart from these technicalities, it is to be noticed that the second respondent filed the said I.A. seeking to adduce in evidence an unregistered gift deed dated 17.08.1983 which was said to have been executed in favour of her grandson. The petitioner herein objected to the marking of the said document. Thereupon, the trial Court placing reliance on the Judgment of this Court in PARITI SURYAKANTHAMMA V/s. SARIPALLI SRINIVASA RAO[1] held that the unregistered gift deed was admissible for collateral purposes. The trial Court however did not venture to ascertain as to what was the collateral purpose for which the second respondent wished to rely on the said document. It is relevant to note that in the counter filed by the second respondent in the R.C.C., a mention is made that her husband had executed a gift deed nine years prior thereto in favour of her son and daughters in four shares. Surprisingly, the affidavit filed in support of the I.A. speaks of a gift deed in favour of the second respondent’s grandson. Further, the Judgment of this Court in PARITI SURYAKANTHAMMA1 was to the effect that an unregistered document could not be relied upon for the main purpose of proving title. This Court found that the document in the said case was not only unregistered but was also insufficiently stamped. The document was therefore held to be inadmissible in evidence in view of the bar contained in Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. This Judgment therefore did not assist the case of the second respondent. The trial Court without addressing these aspects straightaway concluded that the unregistered gift deed produced by the second respondent was admissible in evidence for collateral purposes. As the endeavour of the second respondent in introducing the said document was obviously to non-suit the petitioner in the R.C.C. by laying a claim of title/possession over the suit property, it could not be said to be a collateral purpose. Further, in the light of the law laid down by this Court in RANGA REDDY V/s. SADHU PADAMMA[2] a n d SHAIK KHADARU MASTHAN V/s. SMT.SAYYED FATHIMUN BEE[3], the unregistered gift deed could not in any event have been admitted in evidence. The order dated 14.07.2010 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa, holding the unregistered gift deed dated 17.08.1983 produced by the second respondent to be admissible in evidence is therefore unsustainable in law and is accordingly set aside. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed but in the circumstances without any order as to costs. ---------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR, J. _________ JUNE, 2011. PGS [1] 2010 (2) ALT 648 [2] 2002 (6) ALD 752 [3] 2007 (6) ALT 220