IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD SATURDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4812 OF 2009 Between: T. Nafeesa .....PETITIONER AND C. Zahara Batul @ Zahid Unnisa and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4812 OF 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 11.06.2009, in O.S.No.19 of 2007, on the file of the Judge, Family Court - cum - Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anantapur, whereunder and whereby, the trial Court held that the document styled as ‘gift settlement agreement’, dated 10.06.1994, is not admissible in evidence for want of stamp duty and registration and refused to receive the same. 2. The petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit for partition of plaint schedule property and allotment of shares. The respondents/defendants filed written statement. During trial, when the petitioner sought to mark the document in question, objection was taken with regard to its admissibility, leading to passing of the impugned order. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that even if a document is compulsorily registerable under any one of the clauses of Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short, “the Act”), but not registered, still the contents of the document can be used for collateral purpose as provided under Proviso to Section 49 of the Act and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff relied on a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in M/s. K.B. Saha and Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Development Consultant Limited[1], wherein it is held thus: "From the principles laid down in the various decisions of this Court and the High Courts, as referred to hereinabove, it is evident that:- 1. A document required to be registered is not admissible into evidence under Section 49 of the Registration Act. 2. Such unregistered document can however be used as an evidence of collateral purpose as provided in the Proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act. 3. A collateral transaction must be independent of or divisible from, the transaction to effect which the law required registration. 4. A collateral transaction must be a transaction not itself required to be effected by a registered document, that is, a transaction creating, etc., any right, title or interest in immoveable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards. 5. If a document is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration, none of its terms can be admitted in evidence and that to use a document for the purpose of proving an important clause would not be using it as a collateral purpose." There is no doubt about the proposition of law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court. 5. But, when a document falls within the meaning of an ‘instrument’ under Section 2 (14) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, (for short, “Stamp Act”), which reads thus: ““Instrument” includes every document by which any right or liability is, or purports to be, created, transferred, limited, extended, extinguished or recorded.” such an instrument is liable for Stamp duty and penalty under Section 35 of the Stamp Act. In Avinash Kumar Chauhan v. Vijaya Krishna Mishra[2], it is held thus: “Section 35 of the Act, however, rules out applicability of such provision as it is categorically provided therein that a document of this nature shall not be admitted for any purpose whatsoever.” 6. It is not in dispute before this Court that the gift settlement agreement deed, dated 10.06.1994, comes within the meaning of an instrument. Such is the case, under Section 35 of the Stamp Act, for using of the document for any purpose it requires stamp duty and penalty. Therefore, the impugned order needs no interference. But, however, it is made clear that after impounding the document, it can be received as evidence as provided under proviso to Section 49 of the Act. 7. Accordingly, with the above observation, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J January 29, 2011 MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4812 OF 2009 January 29, 2011 [1] 2008 AIR SCW 4829 [2] AIR 2009 SC 1489