RANGA REDDY Vs. SADHU PADAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 2nd defendant in O.S.No. 164 of 1993 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar is the revision petitioner. He impugnes the incidental order passed by the said Court in O.S.No. 164 of 1993 dated 4-4-2002. Be it noted that while passing the said order, the learned trial Judge held that the unregistered gift deed dated 17-5-1988 produced by the petitioner during trial is not admissible in evidence.

(2.) The 1st respondent herein filed a suit for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. The petitioner herein who is defendant No. 2 filed a written statement alleging that the land admeasuring an extent of Ac. 6.00 comprised in Survey Nos. 164 and 167 was gifted to him by the plaintiff and that he has been in possession of the said land since then. The matter went for trial. At that time, the petitioner on his own volition submitted the document before the Revenue Divisional Officer (Registrar) and the same was impounded for not paying proper stamp duty. Be that as it may, the plaintiff examined herself as P.W. 1 and marked Exs. A-1 to A-4. The petitioner herein examined himself as D.W. 1 and also examined D.W. 2 and D.W. 3. After that, he filed an application to recall himself for the purpose of marking the document dated 17-5-1988 under which the property allegedly in his possession was gifted to him. The opposite party objected for admitting the document in evidence as it was unregistered. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the document in question cannot be accepted in evidence even for collateral purposes as the suit is not for injunction where the only relevant issue would be as to who is in possession of the property and accordingly rejected the document.

(3.) Sri B. Narasimha Sarma, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even without allowing D.W. 1 to come into the box and explain as to what is the collateral purpose, it is improper for the trial Court to assume that the document cannot be marked for collateral purposes. He also submits that the document sought to be marked though is an unregistered gift deed, it comes within the scope of the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 ('the Act' for brevity) and therefore it is admissible in evidence.