IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2181 OF 2010 Between: Veerla Rama Mohanarao …Petitioner And 1. Veerla Sridevi 2. The State of A.P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & 2 others … Respondents This Court made the following: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2181 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner who was unsuccessful before the Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Gudivada, and before the XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishna at Gudivada, in getting his unregistered and unstamped Relinquishment Deed, dated 10.03.2002, into evidence filed the revision petition. 2. The first respondent filed D.V.C.No.2 of 2008 before the Magistrate for various reliefs under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, including share in the properties held by the revision petitioner who is her father-in-law. According to the revision petitioner, his deceased son who is husband of the first respondent relinquished his 1/3rd share in the family properties in his favour under the disputed document. The defect relating to stamp duty was cured after the document was impounded and deficit stamp duty and penalty was collected by the Magistrate. Therefore, Section 35 of the Stamp Act, 1899, is no bar for admissibility of the disputed document. In any event, Proviso (d) of Section 35 of the Stamp Act, 1899, states that the bar under Section 35 is inoperative insofar as proceedings in a criminal Court other than those under Chapters XII and XXXVI of Cr.P.C. 2. Now the dispute persists because the document is unregistered. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that since stamp duty and penalty were paid on the document, the document should have been admitted for limited purpose. There is no limited purpose in this case because by virtue of the disputed document, the revision petitioner wants to deprive the first respondent of the share in the properties left by her husband. In such a situation, the purpose of admitting the document would be for the main purpose of enforcing rights of the revision petitioner under that document. It cannot be said to be a collateral purpose. In the absence of registration, the document conferring or declaring rights in the immovable property becomes not only inadmissible under Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, but is also ineffective and inoperative under Section 49 of the said Act. Therefore, when there is no collateral purpose for which the document is to be marked and when the document is ineffective or inoperative or unenforceable for want of registration, the document becomes inadmissible in evidence for all purposes for want of registration of the same. In that view of the matter, both the Courts below rightly negatived the revision petitioner’s claim for admitting the document in evidence. There is no infirmity in the orders passed by the Courts below. 3. In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. ______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J December 27, 2010 KL HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2181 OF 2010 December 27, 2010 KL