LALITHANANDA HARANADHA SARAWATHI SWAMY Vs. KATRAGADDA BHARATHI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/defendant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the docket order dtd. 18/9/2017 passed by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, in O.S.No.78 of 2009 wherein and whereby learned trial Judge not permitted the petitioner/defendant to mark unregistered gift settlement deed dtd. 14/8/1991. The respondents/plaintiffs have filed suit against the petitioner/defendant for declaration of their title to the plaint schedule immovable property and for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the petitioner/defendant from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. During the course of trial of the suit, the petitioner/defendant intended to mark unregistered gift settlement deed dtd. 14/8/1991 as exhibit in his evidence. For which, learned counsel representing the respondents/plaintiffs before trial Court objected for the same. Then after hearing both sides, learned trial Judge passed orders, which reads as under:-

(2.) Aggrieved by the orders passed by learned trial Judge, the petitioner/defendant filed present civil revision petition stating that orders passed by trial Court are erroneous, contrary to law and weight of evidence. He submits that deciding the validity of the document by the trial Court is pre-matured, which is contrary to well established law. It is the contention of the revision petitioner that document though it is not registered when it is impounded can be received for collateral purpose. He prays to allow this petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that though document dtd. 14/8/1991 styled as settlement deed creating rights in the immovable property in favour of the petitioner/defendant, which requires registration but as stamp duty and penalty is paid on the document before District Registrar, Eluru, which can be received in evidence for collateral purpose, which failed to consider by learned trial Judge. It is the contention of learned counsel for the revision petitioner that refusing to mark the document by the trial Court is erroneous and findings of the trial Court with regard to nature of the document and its purpose without adducing evidence on both sides is pre-matured one, which is liable to be set aside. He relied on following precedent law:-