THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1048 of 2007 O R D E R: The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed by the III Additional District Judge, Guntur in Trust O.P.No.22 of 2003 on 12.12.2006. The point in controversy behind the impugned order is the admissibility of the document dated 19.12.1988. The Trust O.P. was filed by the revision petitioner herein against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein contending that under this document, the transfer of management of the temple and the properties bequeathed thereunder to the petitioner- Trust were confirmed. The first respondent is claimed to have attested the document and the petitioner was claimed to have accepted the transfer of management of the properties. Consequently, the petitioner sought for declaration of its status as a duly appointed trustee and also a declaration that a sale deed executed by the first respondent in favour of the second respondent on 04.10.2002 is void and not binding on the petitioner-Trust. During the course of the enquiry, the petitioner filed the affidavit of the Trustee along with 33 documents among which was the unregistered notarized deed of transfer of management of Trust. While the petitioner claimed the document to be not transferring any title or interest in the property and the unregistered document is sought to be marked only for collateral purpose, the respondents objected to the same on the ground of insufficiently stamped and unregistered document being inadmissible in evidence, due to the same being sought to be produced for the primary purpose of proving the claim of the petitioner for the declaration sought for. The trial Court referred to the decision of this Court rendered in Rayadurgam Pedda Reddeppa (died) and others v Rayadurgam Narasimha Reddy (died) and others[1] about an unregistered document being kept or received in evidence for a collateral purpose in the context of possession of property covered by it. However, it opined that the present document in question is not meant for collateral purpose to prove the possession of the petitioner on property and that as the document needs registration on proper stamps, it cannot be marked. The said order is challenged herein contending that the possession of the petitioner since 20 years in pursuance of the document is alone sought to be established and not any title or ownership rights which were never transferred in favour of the petitioner under the document. The petitioner also contended that the control and management of the Trust by the petitioner since 20 years in pursuance of the document attested by the first respondent himself ought to have been permitted to be proved by marking the document. Sri N. Sreerama Murthy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned counsel for first respondent are heard and reference is again made to the decision referred to by the trial Court in the impugned order. It is seen from the precedent relied on that an unregistered document, which was compulsorily registerable, was attempted to be relied on in that case for the limited purpose of explaining the possession of the petitioners therein, due to which, this Court held that the document was admissible to that extent, being a collateral purpose in the context of possession. While the principle is unexceptionable, the impugned order shows that the trial Court did not bestow it’s attention to the nature of the document and the nature of any right or interest in the properties involved being influenced by the recitals in the document. While it is true that the claim of the petitioner for transfer of management of the temple and it’s properties was stated in the Trust O.P. to be based on the document dated 19.12.1988, the petitioner stated the same to be only an agreement in para 4 of the petition. Again, it described the document as a management transfer deed in the subsequent pleadings in the petition and it now claims that by virtue of the document, no title or interest is transferred. The contention of the respondents to the contrary is obviously that the petitioner seeks to base its claim for the relief of declaration of trust solely on this document which, therefore, cannot be considered to be admissible for any collateral purpose in this enquiry. For determination of these questions in controversy, it is necessary for the trial Court to firstly determine the nature of the document and the effect of the document on the parties and properties involved in order to arrive at any appropriate conclusions about the liability of the document to any stamp duty and registration. It is only on arriving at such a conclusion that the appropriate stamp duty and penalty can be first collected from the petitioner if it is so required, only on which the document becomes admissible for any purpose, as otherwise, the document is inadmissible for any purpose, if it is liable for any stamp duty and the stamp duty and penalty is not collected. If a stamp duty and penalty are paid, if the document is liable for the same, then the trial Court has to decide as to whether the purpose for which the document is sought to be admitted into evidence by the petitioner is the primary purpose or collateral purpose, before applying the principle laid down in the cited precedent. The matter has to be therefore remitted back to the trial Court for adopting such a course of action. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner also referred to orders of this Court in C.R.P.Nos.5332 of 2008 and 60 of 2009 dated 23.06.2009 but no further reference to the said orders is necessary in the light of the above conclusion. In the result, the order of the III Additional District Judge, Guntur in Trust O.P.No.22 of 2003 dated 12.12.2006 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the said Court for determination of the questions of liability of the document in question to any stamp duty and penalty and to any registration and also as to whether the petitioner is seeking to admit the document into evidence for a collateral purpose, if the document requires registration and is not registered in the light of the observations made in this order. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed accordingly. No costs. _____________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD,J 1st July, 2010. PNV [1] 2006(3) ALD 764