IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4214 OF 2009 Between : C.Nagamma ... PETITIONER A N D Smt Nandanavanam Varnalatha& another …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 4214 OF 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 05.06.2009, in O.S.No.549 of 2007 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati, whereunder and whereby, the Court below returned the document dated 27.04.2007, for want of Stamp duty and Penalty. 2. Heard. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the said document can be used for collateral purpose for proving lending of Rs.7,00,000/- and therefore, it has to be received as evidence. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that no stamp duty and penalty has been paid by the petitioner under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act,1899 (for short ‘the Act’), therefore, it cannot be received as evidence and that the document is compulsorily registerble under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, therefore, the trial Court rightly took an objection with regard to the receipt of the document, and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 5. There cannot be any dispute that under Section 35 of the Act, the instrument is chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any person having by law or consent of the parties authority to receive evidence or shall be acted upon, registered or authenticated by any such person or by any public officer, unless such instrument is duly stamped. This provision categorically provided that an instrument shall not be admitted for any purpose whatsoever. 6. No doubt, when the document is compulsorily registerble under Section 17 of the Registration Act, the same is not registered it can be used for collateral purpose in view of proviso to Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act. When the stamp duty and penalty has not been paid, the question of receipt of document cannot be entertained. Therefore, the trial Court rightly stated that the document is not admissible in evidence and it requires stamp duty and penalty. To some extent, the trial Court is correct in saying that the document requires stamp duty and penalty. For want of registration, the receipt of document need not be rejected. Therefore, the trial Court ought to considered the document for collateral purpose in view of proviso to Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed remanding the matter to the trial Court directing the petitioner to pay the stamp duty and penalty as required under Section 35 of the Act. Thereafter, the said document can be received as evidence in terms of proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU. J NOVEMBER 08, 2010. YVL