POLAKA VENKATA RAMI REDDY Vs. POLAKA CHINNAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Revision Petition has been filed aggrieved by the Docket Order dtd. 14/7/2022 passed in O.S.No.56 of 2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kandukur.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner/plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit O.S.No.56 of 2009 against the respondents/ defendants seeking the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of suit A schedule property. The respondents/defendants filed their written statement. Trial began in the said suit. At the time of examination of the plaintiff as P.W.1, Exchange Deed dtd. 28/1/1989 is sought to be marked as Ex.A1. Learned counsel for respondents/ defendants objected for the same on the ground that it is an unregistered Exchange Deed and cannot be marked to prove acquisition/transfer of rights. It is the contention of the petitioner/plaintiff that since he paid stamp duty and penalty on the said Exchange Deed, it can be marked to prove the collateral transaction of nature of possession. The trial Judge, vide the impugned Docket Order dtd. 14/7/2022, sustained the objection raised by the respondents/defendants and rejected request of petitioner/ plaintiff to mark the said Exchange Deed. Challenging the said order, the present revision came to be filed.

(3.) It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since stamp duty and penalty have been paid on the said document, to prove the collateral transaction of nature of possession of the petitioner/plaintiff over the schedule property, the Exchange Deed can be marked as contemplated under Sec. 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, but the Court below committed illegality in rejecting to mark the said document for the purpose of proving the collateral transaction also, and hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside and sought a direction to mark the Exchange Deed dtd. 28/1/1989 as an Exhibit.