P. VENKAYAMMA Vs. BHIMAVARAPU BHIMESWARA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff before the learned trial Court has come up with this civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning the order dtd. 12/12/2017 passed by learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur in I.A.No.662 of 2014 in O.S.No.379 of 2013. The respondents herein are the defendants before the learned trial Court.

(2.) O.S.No.379 of 2013 was filed seeking the relief of cancellation of a sale deed dtd. 2/2/2013 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant and it further seeks for a relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule immovable property. The suit was filed by a woman and the suit has been prosecuted through the mechanism of appointing a special power of attorney holder, who is her son-in-law. The averments in the plaint disclose that it is that son-in-law, who conveyed certain properties, which include suit schedule property to the plaintiff. The father of the son-in-law seems to have obtained a possessory agreement for sale dtd. 23/2/1963 and got 60 square yards of site which seems to be a part of the suit schedule property. On the death of the agreement holder, his son allegedly succeeded the property and then what was said to have been succeeded was conveyed by a registered deed in favour of the plaintiff. It is that part of the property that fell in dispute since the opposite parties allegedly transacted with this property under certain registered conveyances. It is in the context of such facts and circumstances, the litigation before the trial Court cropped up. Both sides put in their pleadings and it seems that the trial Court commenced the trial and started recording evidence. It was at that stage, the plaintiff in the suit filed I.A.No.662 of 2014 under Sec. 151 C.P.C. stating that during the course of evidence when the possessory agreement for sale dtd. 23/2/1963 was sought to be exhibited as one of the documents on behalf of the plaintiff, the learned trial Court objected to admit it on the ground that the document was not properly stamped. Therefore, the petitioner/plaintiff/revision petitioner by the said application made a prayer to the trial Court to evaluate the deficit stamp to be paid on the said document and that she is prepared to pay the deficit stamp duty after it is being evaluated.

(3.) On that application, a counter was invited and the defendants/respondents/respondents filed a counter stating that it is a fabricated document and with unclean hands and with untenable contentions, with a view to delay the proceedings, the plaintiff was pursuing the litigation including the application. It is further stated that the said possessory agreement for sale is a compulsorily registerable document and it cannot be received in evidence and cannot be impounded and cannot be sent for collection of stamp duty and sought for dismissal of the petition.