THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 528 OF 2009 ORDER: 1. This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed challenging the order dated 01.12.2008 in Original Suit No.206 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur. 2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit against the petitioners/ defendants for recovery of money basing on an unregistered mortgage deed dated 5.8.2004. At the time of examination of plaintiff, when the counsel for the plaintiff sought to mark the mortgage deed, the counsel for the defendants took an objection for marking of the said document on the ground that it is a compulsorily registerable document under Section 17 (1) (b) of the Registration Act, 1908 and therefore it cannot be received in evidence. The said objection was over-ruled by the court below by the impugned order by interpreting the document and sought to receive it in evidence. Challenging the same, the present revision is filed. 3. Heard both sides. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision in Avinash Kumar Chauhan v. Vijay Krishna Mishra[1], wherein it is held thus: (para 13) “The Parliament has, in Section 35 of the Act, advisedly used the words "for any purpose whatsoever". Thus, the purpose for which a document is sought to be admitted in evidence or the extent thereof would not be a relevant factor for not invoking the aforementioned provisions.” 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent relied on a decision in Gaddela Lalitha Kumari v. Bonumahanthi Neelakantham[2], wherein it is held thus: (para 8) “In the light of the contents of the document and the legal position, the lower Court can receive the document for a limited purpose of enabling the plaintiff to recover the amount on personal liability of the respondents.” 6. It is not in dispute before this court the document in question is an ‘instrument’ defined in Section 2 (14) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short, “Stamp Act”). Such is the case, stamp duty and penalty are required to be paid on the said document. Admittedly, stamp duty and penalty have not been paid. Even in case of the document which is compulsorily registerable under Section 17 (1) (b) of the Registration Act, 1908 but is not registered, it can be used for collateral purpose as provided under proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. But, such stage would not come in this case in view of the fact that under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, no instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any person unless such instrument is duly stamped. Therefore, the impugned order is to be modified and it is made clear that receipt of the document in question shall be subject to payment of stamp duty and penalty. 7. The Civil Revision Petition is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 25.1.2011 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 528 OF 2009 25.1.2011 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 528 OF 2009 25.1.2011 Between: P.Malla Reddy & others …Petitioners And Vadde Reddappa …Respondent [1] 2009 (1) ALD 109 (SC) [2] 2004 (2) ALD 315