IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.4906 of 2009 Between: Ghousia Begum .. Petitioner AND Razia Begum and 5 others .. Respondents ORDER: Heard Sri Resu Mahender Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri M. Raja Malla Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents. The revision petitioner is aggrieved by the docket order dated 30-09-2009 passed by the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy in O.S.No.662 of 2007, concluding that the unregistered gift deed relied on by the revision petitioner is invalid and inadmissible and consequently, cannot be marked or exhibited. The trial Court referred to the earlier orders of this Court in connected C.R.Ps and also the objection by the learned counsel for the defendants against marking or exhibiting the unregistered gift deed sought to be produced in evidence by PW.1. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner was stated to have relied on revalidation of the document under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Stamp Act as per the certificate issued by the Collector and the trial Court felt that in the light of the decision of this Court in Shaik Khadaru Masthan v. Smt. Sayyed Fathimun Bee[1], the unregistered gift deed between Mohammedans cannot be admitted in evidence even for collateral purpose. The revision petitioner seeks to contend that the document in question was validated under Sections 41 and 42 of the Stamp Act and it only reduced to writing the effect of a gift, which was already effected in favour of the revision petitioner earlier. It is a record of a past event and the registered deed of cancellation of the gift dated 6-11-2006 under document No.117 of 2007 specifically referred to this gift deed dated 01-03-2005 signifying the admission of the execution of the document by the executant. When the execution of the gift deed was not denied, the prohibition under the Personal Law of the parties has no application and the revision petitioner, therefore, desired that the trial Court be directed to receive the gift settlement deed dated 01-03-2005 and mark the same as an exhibit. The copy of the document in question furnished by the revision petitioner shows that the document dated 01-03-2005 though referring to the settlee being given possession of the schedule property already earlier, specifically stated that the property was being settled “herein”. It is true that the document stated that the settlor has donated the said property in favour of the setlee and settled the property free from all encumbrances and charges in favour of the setlee. But the document also further stated that the settlor has delivered the vacant possession of the schedule property “hereby conveyed to the setlee”. So the words “herein settled and hereby conveyed” in their ordinary natural and grammatical meaning and sense convey an impression that the gift/settlement of the property in question was under that document only and not earlier even if any possession of the property was given earlier to the setlee. Even the registered cancellation deed of the gift/settlement dated 6-11-2006 relied on by the revision petitioner as indicating the admission of the execution of the impugned document specifically stated that the setlor gave the agricultural land to the setlee by the gift settlement deed and it was never stated that the deed only recorded a gift settlement, which was already effected. In fact, the cancellation deed also claimed that the setlor did not deliver the possession of property to the setlee till then, contrary to the recital in the gift settlement deed. Therefore, it is clear that the contention of the revision petitioner that the document dated 01-03-2005 only recorded a past event of gift settlement cannot be accepted on the ex facie language of the document itself. Sri Raja Malla Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents again relied on Shaik Khadaru Masthan v. Smt. Sayyed Fathimun Bee (1 supra) reinforced by the earlier decision of this Court in Ranga Reddy v. Sadhu Padamma and others[2]. In the earlier decision, with reference to Section 49 of the Registration Act and the earlier precedents on the aspect, the learned Judge held that an unregistered gift deed effecting immovable property cannot be admitted in evidence even for collateral purpose. In the second decision, authorities from the Apex Court were referred to apart from Ranga Reddy v. Sadhu Padamma (2 supra). The learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied on the decision of the Full Bench in Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Govt. of Hyderabad, v. Tayyaba Begum[3] for the proposition that the main test to be applied was whether the parties regarded the instrument to be a receptacle and appropriate evidence of the transaction, whether it was intended to constitute the gift or it was to serve as a record of a past event. It is true that the Full Bench held that if it was a mere memorandum of the things already transacted and did not embody the gift, no registered document was necessary. However, in the present case, the document in question cannot be treated as a memorandum of past event and as the gift settlement was purported to be made under the document itself, the conclusion of the trial Court based on a binding precedent that the document is inadmissible and cannot be marked and exhibited cannot be considered incorrect. A fine distinction is sought to be made on the admissibility of the document and the receivability of the document by the Court. But, if a document is inadmissible in evidence for any purpose, there is no purpose in the Court receiving and keeping the document on record when the document cannot be confronted to any witness for any purpose. The order of the trial Court cannot, hence, be interfered with. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 22-01-2010 Ksn [1] 2007 (6) ALT 220 [2] 2002 (6) ALD 752 [3] AIR 1962 AP 199 (FB)