HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5090 of 2009 Date 26.07.2010 Between: S.Khader Basha. ..... PETITIONER AND Alla Baksh and others. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri K.Viswanatha Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No.1: None appeared The Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5090 of 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order dated 11.09.2009 in I.A.No.433 of 2009 in I.A.No.206 of 2006 in O.S.No. 38 of 1965 (for short “the suit”) on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Adoni. The petitioner herein is the legal representative of plaintiff No.4 in the suit and respondent No.17 in I.A.No.433 of 2009. Respondent No.1 filed the said I.A. in the final decree proceedings pending in I.A.No.206 of 2006 in the suit. According to respondent No.1, defendant No.4 in the suit died leaving behind her son by name Khasim Sab and that the said Khasim Sab executed a relinquishment deed on 11.08.1979 in favour of defendant No.2. It is also his case that defendant No.7 also executed a similar relinquishment deed in favour of Abdul Sattar. It is his further case that another person by name Mohammed Bi also executed the relinquishment deed in favour of his father. He has filed I.A.No.433 of 2009, under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short ‘1899 Act’), for impounding those documents which were insufficiently stamped. A counter affidavit has been filed by the petitioner wherein a serious objection was raised on the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the transactions in question were hit by the provisions of Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short ‘1882 Act’) and, therefore, the documents covering such transactions cannot be sent for being impounded. The Court below having considered the rival pleas, rejected the objections raised by the petitioner and directed the documents to be sent to the District Collector-cum-Registrar, Kurnool for impounding the same. At the hearing, Sri K.Viswanatha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, placed strong reliance on Section 52 of 1882 Act which mandates that no property, which is the subject matter of the proceeding pending in a Court of competent jurisdiction, can be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit or proceeding so as to affect the rights of any other party thereto under any decree or order which may be made therein, except under the authority of the Court and on such terms as it may impose. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in Surjit Singh v. Harbans Singh[1], Sarvinder Singh v. Dalip Singh[2], Bibi Zubaida Khatoon v. Nabi Hassan Saheb[3] and of this Court in Chappidi Subbareddy v. Chappidi Narapureddy[4] and Pannala Renuka v. Kavali (Rajumouni) Venkataiah.[5]. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel. Under Section 33 of 1899 Act, every person having the authority by law or consent of parties to receive evidence and every person in-charge of a public office, except an officer of a police, before whom any instrument chargeable, in his opinion, with duty, is produced or comes in the performance of his functions, shall, if it appears to him that such instrument is not duly stamped, impound the same. This provision is not circumscribed by any limitations. Far from such limitations, the provision is couched in mandatory terms. Therefore, in the opinion of the lower Court, before which the purported relinquishment deeds were produced by respondent No.1 the said deeds required to be impounded as they were insufficiently stamped, as mandated by Section 33 of 1899 Act. The lower Court has accordingly sent the documents for impounding. The act of impounding under Section 33 of 1899 Act shall take place irrespective of the effect of the instrument so impounded. Such documents are admitted into evidence after impounding. It will be for the Court to consider whether any rights flow from such instruments in the light of the legal provisions including Section 52 of 1882 Act. By ordering for impounding, the Court below cannot be understood to have accepted the plea of respondent No.1 that the rights in the property covered by the documents came to be vested in him or any other person in whose favour the rights in the property were purportedly relinquished. The adjudication in this respect will be required to be made by the Court below after they are impounded and subject to the objections that may be raised by the petitioner and other plaintiffs to the suit. If such objections are raised, the Court below is duty bound to consider the same in the light of the provisions of Section 52 of 1882 Act and any other legal provision or provisions on which the plaintiffs and the defendants may place reliance. In this view of the matter, I do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the order of the lower Court in ordering impounding of the documents produced by respondent No.1 for the purpose of consideration of the effect of those documents in the final decree proceedings. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, referred to above, have no bearing on the issue of impounding arising in this case and are accordingly of no help to the petitioner. For the above mentioned reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised a grievance that the final decree proceedings filed in the suit instituted in the year 1965 have been pending since the year 2006. Having regard to the above fact, the lower Court shall make every endeavour to complete the final decree proceedings and pass a final decree within a period of four months. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, CRP.MP.Nos.6977 and 6978 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief are dismissed as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:26.07.2010 usd [1] AIR 1996 SC 135 [2] 1996(5) SCC 539 [3] AIR 2004 SC 173 [4] 2006(2) ALT 490 [5] AIR 2007 AP 46