Telangana High Court
Smt.Chenna Anasuya vs Sri E.Krishna on 1 April, 2022
Author: P. Sree Sudha
Bench: P. Sree Sudha
1
PSS, J.
CRP.NO. 1754 of 2021
HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA
CRP.No. 1754 of 2019
ORDER:
Aggrieved by the docket order dated 26-10-2021 passed in I.A.No. 516 of 2021 in O.S.No. 208 of 2016 in not receiving and not admitting the document dated 01-3-1987 on 20-1-2020 by the II-Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy district at LB Nager, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners/defendants.
2. Heard the counsel for the revision petitioners and perused the record.
3. The petitioners herein are the defendants in the main suit; namely, O.S.No.208 of 2016. The petitioners filed an affidavit along with petition under Order-VIII, Rule-1 A (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure read with section 151 of C.P.C. It is averred in the affidavit that they filed written statement but could not file "Asti Pampini Oppanda Patram", which was entered between the deceased father of the plaintiff and defendants on 01-3-1987. The said document is unregistered, pertaining to 33 years where signatures of the deceased father and the plaintiff are affixed along with the signatures of the elders in the locality. It is 2 PSS, J.
CRP.NO. 1754 of 2021 averred that the said document could not be traced out during the time of filing of the written statement and it could be located after intensive search in the house and in the midst of several papers bundled. It is further averred that the said document is necessary and crucial for adjudication of the case and it may be received by the trial court and the same may be marked in favour of the petitioners/defendants as Ex.D-1; otherwise, the petitioners/defendants would be put to irreparable damage and ultimately suffer heavily.
4. The petitioners/defendants also filed a memo before the trial court stating that the matter is coming for consideration of document filed as also for perusal of certain judgments filed earlier. The petitioners/defendants relied on three judgments; viz., Annamadevulu Chandrarao V/s. M.Veera Raghavulu and Anr., reported in 2015 (2) ALD 625, Liladhar V/s. Siaram and Anr., reported in AIR-1976 Allahabad-213; and K.Ramamoorthi V/s. C.Surendranatha Reddy reported in 2012 (6) ALD-163. In the said judgments, inter alia, it is held that unregistered document can be admitted in evidence for any collateral transaction. The document in question is 30 years old could be read as evidence without formal proof. Un-registered sale deed is admissible in 3 PSS, J.
CRP.NO. 1754 of 2021 evidence of collateral purpose to a limited extent showing possession of plaintiffs.
5. On 29-1-2020 the trial court heard the arguments of both sides on to the admissibility of "Asthi Pampini and Oppanda Patram" dated 01-3-1987. The trial court after perusal of the contents of the said document observed that it is a family settlement deed involving transfer of rights in the property. As such, it is insufficiently stamped and un-registered. Further only a Xerox copy of the said document has been filed. As such, the said document which is insufficiently stamped and un-registered is inadmissible in examination. For appearance of DW-1 and chief examination posted the matter on 28-2-2020. Since then the matter was adjourned from time to time and on 26-10-2021, the trial court passed docket order observing that both sides called present. The counsel for plaintiff reported that the admissibility aspect was already decided by it on 29-1-2020 but the counsel for defendants reported that as on date the court has not decided the admissibility of un-registered and stamped document dated 01-3-1987. Heard both sides on perusal of record, it is found that this court already concluded about the admissibility of the document dated 01-3-1987 on 29-1-2020. Hence the trial court observed that the 4 PSS, J.
CRP.NO. 1754 of 2021 matter shall be proceeded further and for further chief examination and cross-examination of DW-1, the trial court posted the matter to 11-11-2021.
6. The counsel for the petitioners argued that the document is more than 33 years old and thus it can be read as evidence without formal proof. Moreover, it was also clearly held by this Court in the judgment referred supra-1 that un-registered document affecting immovable property can be admitted in evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be affected by registered document. A collateral transaction is one which is independent of, or divisible from the transaction to effect which the law requires registration. Hence, it must be a document which does not create any right, title or interest in immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards. For establishing only an ancillary issue which is purely incidental to the direct and substantive issue, a document can other wise be received in evidence, but however, whenever a document is marked for any such collateral purpose, the Court must make an endorsement that the said document is received only as evidence for collateral purpose under the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. 5
PSS, J.
CRP.NO. 1754 of 2021
7. In the light of the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners and also after having gone through the record, predominantly, the trial court is directed to receive the document; namely,"Asti Pampini Oppanda Patram", subject to proof and relevancy, proceed with the trial of suit and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
8. With the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
9. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications if any, pending shall stand disposed of.
________________________ JUSTICE SMT. P. SREE SUDHA 01/04/2022 ISL 6 PSS, J.
CRP.NO. 1754 of 2021 HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA CRP.No. 1754 of 2021 ( CRP IS DISPOSED OF WITH A DIRECTION TO RECEIVE DOCUMENT AND DISPOSE OF THE MAIN SUIT WITHIN SIX MONTHS. NO COSTS.) Circulation No. Date: 01-04-2022 Court Master: ISL