THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P. No.1961 of 2010 ORDER: The respondent filed O.S.No.637 of 2005 against the petitioner in the Court of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa, for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. The claim was based upon an unstamped and unregistered gift deed dated 11-09-1998, stated to have been executed by the petitioner in favour of the son of the respondent. The petitioner filed a written- statement, denying the execution of gift deed. The trial of the suit commenced. The trial Court took on record the unregistered gift deed dated 11-09-1998. The petitioner filed I.A.No.175 of 2010 under Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act (for short ‘the Act’), read with Order XVIII Rule 3 C.P.C., with a prayer to omit the said gift deed from consideration, in the suit. He pleaded that the gift deed is required to be registered under Section 17 of the Act, and since the document was not registered, it is inadmissible in evidence. The application was opposed by the respondent. The trial Court dismissed the I.A., through order dated 09-04-2010. The same is challenged in this revision. Sri K.G.Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a gift deed is required to be registered under Section 17 of the Act and Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act (for short ‘the T.P. Act’), and since the one, filed by the respondent was not registered, it ought not to have received in evidence. He further submits that even if the document is impounded, the serious defect, as to registration, continues to remain. He places reliance upon the judgments of this Court in SYED FATAHUDDIN v. GOLLA SHADRAK[1]; KATWAL ABDUL HAKEEM SAB (Died) PER LRs. v. NASYAM SUFIYA AND OTHERS[2], and PARITI SURYAKANTHAMMA AND ANOTHER v. SARIPALLI SRINIVASA RAO AND ANOTHER[3]. Sri A. Srinath, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the mere fact that the document was taken on record would not cause any harm to the parties, and if ultimately it emerges that the document is inadmissible in evidence, it can be eschewed from consideration, at the final stage of the suit. He places reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court and this Court in STATE, THROUGH SPECIAL CELL, NEW DELHI v. NAVJOT SANDHU[4] and MULLA ALAMSABGARI DASTIGIRI v. B. PULLAMMA AND OTHERS[5], respectively. The respondent filed the suit for the relief of injunction, by pleading that the suit schedule property was gifted to his minor son, by the petitioner. Admittedly, the alleged gift deed was neither stamped nor registered. The parties are Muslims. It is permissible for them to donate immovable properties, even by oral gift, and such transactions stand exempted from the purview of the Act and the T.P. Act. Where, however, the gift, by a Muslim, is made through a written document, it is required to be registered. This Court held so, in SYED FATAHUDDIN’S case (1 supra), and KATWAL ABDUL HAKEEM’S case (2 supra). The respondent pleaded that the document was impounded and thereby, it became admissible in evidence. Even if that is so, the embargo placed under the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act gets cleared, but prohibition contained under Section 49 of the Act, as to the admissibility to unregistered documents, which are otherwise required to be registered; continues. Reference in this context may be made, to the judgment of this Court, in KATWAL ABDUL HAKEEM’S case (2 supra). It is no doubt true that in SYED FATAHUDDIN’S case (1 supra), and KATWAL ABDUL HAKEEM’S case (2 supra) it was held that wherever a dispute exists as to the admissibility of a document, with reference to the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, the document must be taken on record, and admissibility thereof must be decided at the final stage of the suit. The dispute here is not about any deficiency of stamp duty. It is the one, relating to registration. No where in the said judgments, it was pointed out that an unregistered document, which is otherwise required to be registered; can be received in evidence, postponing the consideration thereof to the final stage. Unless the circumstances indicated under the proviso to Section 49 of the T.P. Act exist, an unregistered document cannot be received in evidence. The trial Court examined the matter only from the point of view of the Indian Stamp Act, and it did not take into account, the prohibition contained under the Registration Act. Hence, the revision is allowed, and the order under revision is set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.175 of 2010 shall stand allowed, and the unregistered gift deed, relied upon by the respondent, shall be eschewed from consideration. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt. 02-08-2010. KO [1] 2004 (6) ALD 562 [2] 2010 (2) ALT 319 [3] 2010 (2) ALT 648 [4] 2003 (1) Decisions Today (SC) 490 [5] 2004 (2) ALT 271