Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Venkatalakshmi vs B.Sreenivasulu And Another on 24 February, 2026

APHC010533342025
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                 AT AMARAVATI             [3311]
                          (Special Original Jurisdiction)

     Tuesday, the twenty fourth day of two thousand and twenty six

                                   Present

              The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi

                   Civil Revision Petition No: 2737 of 2025

Between:

Venkatalakshmi                                                ...Petitioner
                                                                 Petitioner

                                     and

B.Sreenivasulu and another                                ...Respondent
                                                             Respondents



Counsel for the petitioner:

   Ayesha Azma S

Counsel for the respondents:

   NIL

The Court made the following:
                                      2
                                                          C.R.P.No.2737 of 2025
O R D E R:

This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 02.09.2025 allowing I.A.No.537 of 2024 in I.A.No.98 of 2024 in O.S.No.38 of 2024 filed by the defendants under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short, the 'Stamp Act') to send the lease agreements, dated 03.07.2014 to the District Registrar, Puttaparthy, for impounding the same.

2. The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants for recovery of arrears of rent to a tune of Rs.2,64,000/- payable by the defendant No.1 and Rs.1,98,000/- payable by the defendant No.2 and future interest thereon and a direction to the defendants to vacate the suit schedule house property. The plaintiff pleaded that the defendant No.1 entered into one portion of the suit schedule property on a monthly rent of Rs.8,000/- and the defendant No.2 entered into another portion of the suit schedule property on a monthly rent of Rs.6,000/- and thus, both of them entered into the suit schedule property in the year 2021 on the condition that the rent would be paid before the 10th day of every calendar month, but the defendants had not paid the rental amount to the plaintiff from the month of May, 2021 despite several requests and that the attempts of negotiations before the village elders had failed.

3. The defendants Nos.1 and 2 filed a written statement opposing the suit and denying the case of the plaintiff regarding the lease and further stating that the suit schedule property consisting of two portions was the joint family property of P.N.Venkata Reddy, husband of the plaintiff and his sons Jagga Reddy and Janardhan Reddy; that in the presence of his son / Jagannath, P.N.Venkatareddy entered into a lease agreement with the defendant No.1 under a lease deed dated 03.07.2014 (attested by P.V.Jagannath), with conditions that the defendant No.1 had to bear expenditure of Rs.3,00,000/- for removing the roof of his portion and get 3 C.R.P.No.2737 of 2025 it repaired by fixing angulars and therefore need not pay any rent and further that whenever P.N.Venkata Reddy repays the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the defendant No.1, that portion of the property shall be delivered to P.N.Venkata Reddy; that the defendant No.2 entered into a similar agreement with P.N.Venkata Reddy under an even dated lease deed with regard to the other portion, with the only difference being that the amount to be spent by the defendant No.2 is Rs.2,00,000/-; that after the death of P.N.Venkata Reddy, his sons have not paid any amount to the defendants and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to file the suit and; that the plaintiff manipulated house tax in her favour after death of her husband by getting her name mutated, though the house property devolved on his sons as well.

4. I.A.No.537 of 2024 was filed by the defendants alleging that the lease deeds were not registered by mistake, however they need to be impounded by sending them to the District Registrar.

5. The petition was opposed by the plaintiff by filing counter, denying the averments in the affidavit annexed to the petition; that the petitioners / defendants are making illegal attempts to reach their unlawful goal and that the petition is liable to be dismissed; that since the lease agreements were not registered, they are inadmissible in evidence and, that there is no merit in the petition.

6. After hearing both the parties, the petition was allowed by the trial Court holding that as per Section 35 of the Stamp Act, an instrument which is not properly stamped, cannot be used in Court of law for any purpose and that as per Section 17 r/w Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short, the 'Registration Act') a document which requires registration cannot be received in evidence, except for proof of collateral transaction, however subject to payment of stamp duty payable under the Stamp Act. It is further observed that the petitioners relied on the 4 C.R.P.No.2737 of 2025 lease agreements to oppose the case of the plaintiff and for getting them impounded.

7. Aggrieved by the order, this revision petition was filed contending that the impugned order was decided with pre-conceived notion that the documents are admissible though they are inadmissible in evidence as they are unregistered and that the trial Court allowed the respondents / defendants to file the documents in evidence by allowing I.A.No.472 of 2024 which is filed to receive the documents. It is further contended that the impugned order was passed in blatant violation of Sections 37 and 38 of the Stamp Act.

8. Sections 17(1)(d) and 49 of the Registration Act read as follows:

17. Documents of which registration is compulsory--(1) The following documents shall be registered, if the property to which they relate is situate in a district in which and if they have been executed on or after the date on which, Act No. XVI of 1864, or the Indian Registration Act, 1866 (20 of 1866), or the Indian Registration Act, 1871 (8 of 1871), or the Indian Registration Act, 1877 (3 of 1877), or this Act came or comes into force, namely:

(d) leases of immovable property

49. Effect of non-registration of documents required to be registered-- No document required by Section 17 or by any provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to be registered shall:

(a) affect any immovable property comprised therein, or

(b) confer any power to adopt; or

(c) be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power, unless it has been registered:

Provided that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by this Act, or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument.

9. As per Section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act, the documents sought to be impounded requires registration. The effect of unregistered document is governed by Section 49 of the Registration Act. It permits such document to be used as evidence, not of main transaction, but of collateral transaction which does not require registration. The defendants have not indicated the purpose for which they want to rely on these documents in evidence.

10. As can be seen from the defence taken in the written statement, they pleaded that the husband of the plaintiff allowed them to incur expenditure for attending repairs and that until the said amount is paid off, there is no obligation to pay rent. Consequently, these terms are essential being part of the lease as a whole. Therefore, these documents cannot be used for the purpose of establishing main transaction of terms of lease covered by Section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act. If at all the defendants intend to rely on these documents for evidence of any other collateral transaction, the parties must indicate the same so that it can be examined as to whether such purpose is collateral or not and it also requires registration or not. It is only if such purpose does not require registration, the documents can be received in evidence. Even then, the stamp duty required shall be collected. Until such payment is made, reading together Section 33 with Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, such documents cannot be received in evidence.

11. Section 33, 35, 37 and 38 of the Stamp Act reads as follows:

"33. Examination and impounding of instruments. --

(1) Every person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, and every person in charge of a public office, except an officer of police, before whom any instrument, chargeable, in his opinion, with duty, is produced or comes in the performance of his functions, shall, if it appears to him that such instrument is not duly stamped, impound the same. (2) For that purpose every such person shall examine every instrument so chargeable and so produced or coming before him, in order to ascertain whether it is stamped with a stamp of the value and description required by the law in force in India when such instrument was executed or first executed: Provided that--

(a) nothing herein contained shall be deemed to require any Magistrate of Judge of a Criminal Court to examine or impound, if he does not think fit so to do, any instrument coming before him in the course of any proceeding other than a proceeding under Chapter XII or Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (V of 1989);

(b) in the case of a Judge of a High Court, the duty of examining and impounding any instrument under this section may be delegated to such officer as the Court appoints in this behalf. (3) For the purposes of this section, in cases of doubt, --

(a) the State Government may determine what offices shall be deemed to be public offices; and

(b) the State Government may determine who shall be deemed to be persons in charge of public offices".

35. Instruments not duly stamped inadmissible in evidence, etc. -- No Instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in 7 C.R.P.No.2737 of 2025 evidence for any purpose by any person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, or shall be acted upon, registered or authenticated by any such person or by any public officer, unless such instrument is duly stamped :

Provided that:

(a) any such instrument shall be admitted in evidence on payment of the duty with which the same is chargeable, or, in the case of an instrument insufficiently stamped, of the amount required to make up such duty, together with a penalty of fifteen rupees, or, when ten times the amount of the proper duty or deficient portion thereof exceeds fifteen rupees, of a sum equal to ten times such duty or portion;

(b) where any person from whom a stamped receipt could have been demanded, has given an unstamped receipt and such receipt, if stamped, would be admissible in evidence against him then such receipt shall be admitted in evidence against him, on payment of a penalty of three rupees by the person tendering it;

(c) where a contract or agreement of any kind is effected by correspondence consisting of two or more letters and any one of the letters bears the proper stamp, the contract or agreement shall be deemed to be duly stamped;

(d) nothing herein contained shall prevent the admission of any instrument in evidence in proceeding in a Criminal Court, other than a proceeding under Chapter XII or Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898;

(e) nothing herein contained shall prevent the admission of any instrument in any Court when such instrument has been executed by or on behalf of the Government or where it bears the certificate of the Collector as provided by section 32 or any other provision of this Act.

37. Admission of improperly stamped instruments --

The State Government may make rules providing that, where an instrument bears a stamp of sufficient amount but of improper description, it may, on payment of the duty with which the same is chargeable, be certified to be duly stamped, and any instrument so certified shall then be deemed to have been duly stamped as from the date of its execution.

38. Instruments impounded how dealt with --

(1) When the person impounding an instrument under Section 33 has, by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence and admits such instrument in evidence upon payment of a penalty as provided by Section 35 or of duty as provided by Section 37, he shall send to the Collector an authenticated copy of such instrument, together with a certificate in writing, stating the amount of duty and penalty levied in respect thereof, and shall send such amount to the Collector, or to such person as he may appoint in this behalf."

12. It is an obligation of a Court, while receiving a document as evidence of collateral transaction on payment of necessary stamp duty and penalty, to indicate collateral purpose for which such document is received in evidence.

13. There is also an obligation on the Court to get the documents impounded as per Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act. Therefore, allowing the prayer to send the documents for impounding is correct in law as even in the absence of such application, it is the bounden duty of the Court to send the documents for impounding and a party cannot be allowed to take custody of such document until the document is impounded.

14. However, the observation of the trial Court in the impugned order that on payment of stamp duty, document can be allowed in evidence is objectionable because the Court did not express the collateral purpose for which it may be used after impounding when such documents are tendered in evidence. Of course, it is open for a party to object for marking of a document on the ground of its inadmissibility when such document is tendered in evidence. Therefore, the plaintiff can raise the objection for admission of documents in evidence even on ground of using them for main purpose of establishing the terms of lease as to payment of rent etc., But, the observation already made by the trial Court in the order, unless revised, it may come in the way of the plaintiffs at a later stage.

15. As such, it is required to set aside only the observation of the trial Court in the impugned order to the extent that the document can be used in evidence after getting the documents impounded, and leave it open for the plaintiff to raise objection regarding the admissibility of the documents in evidence, be it for main purpose or even collateral purpose, unless it is specified by the defendants before receiving the documents in evidence. In view of Section 33 of the Stamp Act, the order directing the documents to be sent for impounding remains valid.

16. With such clarification, the revision petition is partly allowed to the extent of setting aside the above said finding while upholding the order directing impounding of the documents.

There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

___________________ B. S. BHANUMATHI, J Dt.24.02.2026 NSM / PNV