IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3355 OF 2008 Between: Yenamala Venkataramana Reddy and another .....PETITIONERS AND Kommepalle Sadasiva Reddy ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3355 OF 2008 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed aggrieved by the marking of document Ex.A-1 in chief examination of the respondent/plaintiff (PW.1), on 04.03.2008 in O.S.No.355 of 2000 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Vayalpad. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants contended that the required stamp duty and penalty has not been paid for the document marked i.e., Ex.A-1, in view of the fact that the document, Ex.A-1, is an unregistered document and it requires payment of stamp duty and penalty as prescribed under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short, "the Act"). 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff contended that under proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, an unregistered document can be looked into for collateral purpose. 4. But, the learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Avinash Kumar Chauhan v. Vijay Krishna Mishra[1], wherein it is held thus: “The unregistered deed of sale was an instrument which required payment of the stamp duty applicable to a deed of conveyance. Adequate stamp duty admittedly was not paid. The Court, therefore, was empowered to pass an order in terms of Section 35 of the Act.” So, in view of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court, the trial Court ought to have passed an order in terms of Section 35 of the Act. Therefore, the trial Court is directed to pass an order with regard to impounding the document Ex.A-1 for the purpose of payment of stamp duty and penalty. 5. With the above modification, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J September 30, 2010 MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3355 OF 2008 September 30, 2010 [1] (2009) SCCR 301