Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Divi Ramesh Babu vs Chenniboina Venkateswarlu on 13 February, 2020
Author: M. Venkata Ramana
Bench: M. Venkata Ramana
MVR,J
C.R.Ps.No.739 & 745 of 2019
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M. VENKATA RAMANA
C.R.Ps.No.739 and 745 of 2019
Between:
Divi Ramesh Babu,
S/o.Venkata Subbaiah,
Aged 58 years, Advocate,
Now residing at Mungamoor Donka,
Ongole City, Prakasam District
... PETITIONER
AND
1. Chenniboina Venkateswarlu (Died) and
Seven others
... RESPONDENTS
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED :13.02.2020
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M. VENKATA RAMANA
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers
may be allowed to see the order? Yes/No
2. Whether the copy of order may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No
3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the
fair copy of the order? Yes/No
___________________
M. VENKATA RAMANA
MVR,J
C.R.Ps.No.739 & 745 of 2019
2
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
*HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M. VENKATA RAMANA
+ C.R.Ps.No.739 AND 745 of 2019
% Dated:13.02.2020
Between:
# Divi Ramesh Babu,
S/o.Venkata Subbaiah,
Aged 58 years, Advocate,
Now residing at Mungamoor Donka,
Ongole City, Prakasam District
... Petitioner
AND
$ 1. Chenniboina Venkateswarlu (Died) and
Seven others
... RESPONDENTS
! Counsel for petitioner : Mr. Nagapraveen Venkayalapati
^Counsel for Respondents : ---
<GIST :
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred:
1. (2001) 3 SCC 1
2. (2009)16 SCC 262
3. 2000(3) ALT 787
MVR,J
C.R.Ps.No.739 & 745 of 2019
3
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. VENKATA RAMANA
C.R.Ps.No.739 and 745 of 2019
COMMON ORDER:
C.R.P.No.739 of 2019 is directed against the order of the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, at Kandukur, Prakasam District, in I.A.No.1223 of 2018, and C.R.P.No.745 of 2019 is directed against the order in I.A.No.1879 of 2018 of the same Court in O.S.No.258 of 2013, dated 10.10.2018 and 04.02.2019 respectively.
2. In both these revision petitions, the third defendant is the petitioner and the respondents 1 to 6 are the plaintiffs while respondents 7 and 8 are the defendants 1 and 2 respectively.
3. I.A.No.1223 of 2018 was filed in the suit for reception of certain documents sought to be produced by respondents 1 to 6 under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC and whereas I.A.No.1879 of 2018 was filed purportedly under Section 36 of Indian Stamp Act to send the document dated 05.06.1974 to the District Registrar, Markapur, to impound and to collect stamp duty and penalty thereon.
4. In I.A.No.1223 of 2018, the request of respondents 1 to 6 was to receive a letter alleged to have been executed by the vendor of the petitioner in favour of the vendor of the 4th respondent and the reason assigned for delayed production is that relief of declaration has been sought in the suit after amending the plaint and the letter stated above, has certain bearing in the matter and it is necessary to support the version of the fourth respondent.
5. Reception of this document was opposed on behalf of the petitioner mainly on the ground that the document was not filed along MVR,J C.R.Ps.No.739 & 745 of 2019 4 with the plaint, which is unstamped and unregistered. It was further contention of the petitioner that this document cannot be considered by the Court for any purpose and that source of securing this document is also not disclosed. Thus mainly urging, the petitioner requested the trial Court not to receive the document.
5. Considering the material as well as the contentions of the parties, observing that any objection as to nature of this document could be raised at an appropriate stage and that opportunity should be given to the parties to let-in evidence, request of respondents 1 to 6 was accepted, allowing the petition.
6. The request of respondents 1 to 6 in I.A.No.1879 of 2018 to forward the above document to the Collector under the Stamp Act, viz., the District Registrar, Markapur, was accepted inspite of stiff resistance from the petitioner almost on similar lines, which he had adverted to in I.A.No.1223 of 2018.
7. Sri Naga Praveen Vankayalapati, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the document in question could not have been received granting necessary leave and the observation of the trial Court treating the document in question as 'relinquishment deed' and directing the District Registrar, Markapur to impound for collecting stamp duty and penalty, is not proper. Learned counsel also relied on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court then at Hyderabad, in support of his contention, which shall refer to infra.
8. Sri Devarayalu, B.M., learned counsel for respondents 2 to 6 supported the orders under revision.
9. Now, the following points arise for determination:
MVR,J C.R.Ps.No.739 & 745 of 2019 5
1. Whether the leave granted by the trial Court to receive the document in question, is justified?
2. Whether the trial Court is justified in forwarding the document in question to District Registrar, Markapur, with a specific direction to treat it as 'relinquishment deed', is proper?
10. As rightly observed by the learned trial Judge in the order under revision, the parties should be given sufficient opportunity to produce all required evidence in support of their respective claims. Though they are required to produce the documents in support of their respective contentions at the trial of the matter and preferably before settlement of issues, in practice, instances always occur that the documents are produced by the parties at the time of the trial. On the above principle and in order to not to deny opportunity to the parties, reception of such documents is permitted granting necessary leave. When such course is followed by the learned trial Judge in this matter, it cannot be found fault with, particularly, when the discretion has been exercised in that respect.
11. Even otherwise, the petitioner will have an opportunity of cross- examining the witnesses on behalf of the respondents 1 to 6 that speak of these documents at the trial. Thereby, the petitioner does not suffer any prejudice, as such. Thus, the order passed by the learned trial Judge in I.A.No.1223 of 2018 is justified and it does not call for any interference. Thus, this point is answered.
12. POINT No.2: The document in question undisputedly is not stamped nor registered. Attempt of the respondents 1 to 6 in the trial Court was to get it impounded by the Collector under Stamp Act, viz., the concerned District Registrar and in this case, of Markapur. Though MVR,J C.R.Ps.No.739 & 745 of 2019 6 the petition filed in the trial Court was under Section 36 of the Stamp Act, the Court can consider such request in terms of Sections 38 to 40 of the Stamp Act. Whenever such request is made, ordinarily the trial Court cannot refuse to act upon it. Necessarily when the document has to be impounded, either in terms of Section 33 of the Stamp Act or since it suffers vice under Section 35 of the Stamp Act, it shall be impounded. The procedure required to follow in this context is detailed in the Stamp Act itself, under Section 38 to Section 42. Once a certificate is issued by the Collector under the Stamp Act in terms of Section 40(2), it shall be conclusive evidence of the matter stated therein. That is to say, that the certificate issued under Section 40(2) of the Stamp Act by the Collector shall be conclusive evidence its such contents. Thereby, such contents of this certificate cannot be and would not be subject matter of any objection, by any of the parties concerned to the document, subjected to such exercise of power by the Collector.
13. When the Court decides to forward the document to the Collector under Stamp Act, neither it is necessary nor incumbent upon to describe the nature of the document on consideration of its recitals as well as determining its nature, suggesting such description. The collector under the stamp duty has a statutory duty to decide the nature of this document. The Court while forwarding the document in terms of Section 38 of Stamp Act cannot prejudge the issue, as is done in this case. To that extent, the complaint of the petitioner, now strenuously canvassed by his learned Counsel, against the trial Court is justified. Otherwise, when the trial Court has unbridled power to forward such document to the Collector under the Stamp Act, it cannot in any manner be interdicted nor can be found fault with.
MVR,J C.R.Ps.No.739 & 745 of 2019 7
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on BIPIN SHANTILAL PANCHAL v. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER1 contending that the Court can follow the practice as directed in this ruling to mark a document subject to objection, whenever a party raises. There is absolutely no dispute about this proposition of law and such objection is taken only when document is introduced in evidence by a party. Another ruling relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner is BARIUM CHEMICALS LIMITED v. VISHWA BHARATI MINING CORPORATION AND ANOTHER2. It is a case relating to application of Sections 35 and 36 of the Stamp Act. This ruling is besides the point, in the present case.
15. PULAVARTHI LAKSHMI SURYA SUBRAHMANYAM v. PULAVARTHI SOMARAJU3 is also relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner. This ruling is with reference to application of Section 27 of the Stamp Act. Even this ruling cannot assist the contention of the petitioner in any manner.
16. Therefore, expunging such part of the order in I.A.No.1879 of 2018 in O.S.No.258 of 2013, describing the document in question dated 05.06.1974 as 'relinquishment deed', rest of the order shall be confirmed.
Thus, this point is answered.
17. In the result, C.R.P.No.739 of 2019 is dismissed. The following words 'by considering it as relinquishment deed' stand expunged and deleted. The document dated 05.06.1974 is directed to be forwarded to the District Registrar, Markapur for consideration in terms of Section 38 and Section 40 of the Stamp Act for impounding and also to collect 1 (2001) 3 SCC 1 2 (2009) 16 SCC 262 3 2000 (3) ALT 787 MVR,J C.R.Ps.No.739 & 745 of 2019 8 necessary stamp duty and penalty after considering nature of this document. The District Registrar, Markapur, shall consider the same, independently, without being influenced by the observations of the trial Court, in respect of nature and description of this document, to fall within purview of Schedule IA of the Stamp Act, applicable to the State of A.P. All pending petitions stand closed. Interim orders, stand vacated. No costs.
____________________ M. VENKATA RAMANA, J Dt:13.02.2020 Rns MVR,J C.R.Ps.No.739 & 745 of 2019 9 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. VENKATA RAMANA C.R.Ps.No.739 and 745 of 2019 Date:13.02.2020 Rns MVR,J C.R.Ps.No.739 & 745 of 2019 10