IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE 18th DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4990 of 2009 Between: Ananthaneni Azad … Petitioner And Moparthi Dhanalakshmi and others … Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4990 of 2009 ORDER: - Respondent No.1/plaintiff, who filed the suit viz., O.S.No.764 of 2006 for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property, sought to mark the unregistered partition deed, which is required to be registered under Section 17(1)(b) of the Indian Registration Act. On the objection raised by the defendants, the lower court by the impugned order refused to receive the certified copy of the family settlement deed, dated 07.09.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner by relying on the judgment of this Court in Vajrala Ramesh v. Vajrala Narayana Setty[1] contends that at the time of receiving the document, the lower court cannot go into the merits of the document and that the said document can be received in evidence to prove his possession for a collateral purpose. This Court does not find any merit in the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner for the reason that as per proviso to Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 an unregistered document, which affects the immovable property and requires registration by the Registration Act or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, can be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument. The words “or as evidence of part performance of a contract for the purposes of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882” were omitted from the said proviso by Act 48 of 2001, with effect from 24.09.2001. In view of the same, since the suit is filed only for permanent injunction and not for specific performance of the agreement of partition deed with a direction to defendants to execute the registered partition deed, in terms of the document, the same cannot be received as evidence as held by this Court supra. Further, the said document also does not fall under any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument. No infirmity is discernable with the order passed by the lower court, warranting interference by this Court. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J 18.11.2011 lmv HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4990 of 2009 18.11.2011 lmv [1] 2005 ALT 3-1