THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.784 OF 2009 DATED:01.03.2011 Between: Sriram Kashinatham & 4 others. .... PETITIONERS And B.Prabhakar & another. .... RESPONDENTS ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 28.01.2009, in O.S.No.139 of 2003 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Siddipet, wherein the objection raised by the petitioners herein-defendants over marking of an unregistered gift deed in evidence, was overruled, observing that the said document can be marked for bilateral purpose. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. Respondents herein filed the suit for permanent injunction against the petitioners-defendants in respect of the plaint schedule property of 363 sq.yards in Sy.No.473 of Dubbaka village, Medak District. 4. Petitioners filed written statement contesting the suit. After framing necessary issues, the trial was commenced. When the matter was posted for marking of documents on behalf of the plaintiffs, an unregistered gift deed, said to have been executed by the plaintiffs’ father in favour of the plaintiffs, was sought to be marked in evidence. Petitioners-defendants objected for the same on the ground that it was unregistered and also that it was unstamped. The trial Court overruled the objection holding that the plaintiffs have already paid the stamp duty and therefore the document can be marked for collateral purpose. 5. It is to be noted that the suit is filed for injunction and the plaintiffs seek to rely upon the document to prove their possession. In a suit for injunction, the main question that arises for consideration is whether the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property or not. The plaintiffs seek to rely upon the disputed document for the main purpose of proving their possession, but not for any collateral purpose. Whether the purpose for which the party seeks to rely upon the subject-document is main purpose or collateral purpose depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case. In the present case, the suit being one for injunction and the plaintiffs claiming to be in possession of the suit property, seek to rely upon the disputed document only for the purpose of showing their alleged possession. When that is so, if the plaintiffs intend to mark the document for the main purpose of showing their alleged possession over the suit property so as to enable themselves to seek the relief of injunction but not for any collateral purpose, the finding of the trial Court that the document can be marked because the plaintiffs intend to rely upon the same for collateral purpose, is therefore unsustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. As the document is admittedly a gift deed and unregistered and the same is sought to be relied upon for main purpose and not for any collateral purpose, the proviso to Section 49 (C) of the Registration Act is not attracted and hence, the document cannot be marked in evidence. Having regard to the fact that the suit is of the year 2003, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the same within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The trial Court is directed to make necessary endeavour to dispose of the same expeditiously and preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petition is allowed. Interim stay granted on 12.03.2009 stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 01st March, 2011. Tsy