K. SITHALAKSHMI Vs. PILLUTLA VEEA RAGHAVAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the orders passed in the suit docket in O.S.No.195 of 2010 dtd. 26/11/2015 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole wherein and whereby the learned trial Judge overruled the objection raised by the learned counsel for plaintiff regarding marking of document dtd. 5/8/2015.

(2.) The Revision Petitioner filed suit against the respondents seeking partition and separate possession of her 1/4th share of plaint schedule properties consisting of item Nos.1 to 12. During the course of trial of the suit, the respondents/defendants intended to mark document dtd. 5/8/2015 said to be partition list as an exhibit in their evidence. For which, learned counsel representing for the petitioner/plaintiff before the trial Court objected for the same. Then after hearing both sides, learned trial Judge passed orders, which reads as under:

(3.) Aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned trial Judge, the petitioner/plaintiff preferred present Revision Petition stating that order of the trial Court in jumping into the conclusion that the partition list dtd. 24/6/1986 is memorandum of partition does not require stamp duty and registration is contrary to law. He submits that Respondent No.3 filed an unregistered partition deed dtd. 24/6/1986 with a petition to condone the delay in filing the document which respondent No.3 intended to mark in his evidence for establishing the partition among the petitioner and respondents but not for collateral purpose. It is the contention of the revision petitioner that trial Court erred in misinterpreting the partition deed dtd. 24/6/1986 as partition list and trial Court ought to have rejected the admission of the document into evidence as it is not registered and not properly stamped as required under Sec. 17 of Registration Act. He prays to allow the revision petition.