THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Civil Revision Petition No. 2879 of 2011 Order: This revision petition is filed challenging the order dated 25.04.2011 passed in O.S. No.319 of 2005 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District. The petitioner herein, who is defendant No.1 in the suit, wanted to mark a document dated 25.03.2000 on the ground that the same can be received for collateral purpose. The lower Court holding that marking of such document is prohibited under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act refused to mark the document. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a judgment reported in Kakkarla Vijaya v. Kakkarla Venkataiah[1], wherein it was held that an unregistered partition deed can be admitted in evidence for collateral purpose of proving division of status and nature and character of possession. He has also relied on the judgment in case Pallapothu Naga Prasad v. Pallapothu Venkata Krishna Rao[2] for the same proposition. There is no dispute with regard to principles laid down in the above referred decisions. An unregistered partition deed can be marked and admitted in evidence only for collateral purpose. However, Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act prohibits receiving of any such document which is not stamped as required under the Act. The lower Court relying on the judgment of this Court in Burra Anitha v. Elagari Mallavva[3], held that unstamped or insufficiently stamped unregistered document is inadmissible for any purpose even for collateral purpose and has rightly refused to mark the document. The order of the lower Court is perfectly justified. I do not see any irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the lower Court to interfere with the same. The CRP is devoid of merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed at the admission stage itself. However, it is always open to the petitioner to pay deficit stamp duty and request the Court to mark the document for collateral purpose and subject to the objections, if any, the lower Court may receive the same. No costs. ___________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 22.07.2011 Nsr [1] 1999 (6) ALD 642 [2] 2003 (1) ALD 251 [3] 2010(6) ALT 128