RAM NIWAS Vs. NIHAL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, the appellant has challenged the order dated 13-10-72 of the learned trial court dated September 8, 1966. The defendant produced Gobind Singh son of Kanhiya Lal Patel as witness and wanted this witness to prove an alleged receipt dated September 8, 1956, executed by the plaintiff - Petitioner in favour of Nihal Chand defendant-respondent. This was objected to by the learned counsel of the petitioner, but the learned sub Judge over-ruled the objection and exhibited the document as D.W. 6/A. The receipt is read before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner and I do not find that there is any recital of relinquishment in this document. It is only a receipt with regard to the execution of the past event and does not in any way relate to relinquishment of any property. It only contains the recital with regard to the past event. As it relates to immovable property, it does not require registration or stamp beyond the value of the ten paise. It is now well settled in such cases. A Full Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Addanki Narayanappa and others v. Bhaskara Krishtappa and others, 1959 AIR(AP) 380, held as under.

(2.) It is quite clear from the observations of their lordships of the Supreme Court that once a document is admitted and is marked as an Exhibit and has been used by the parties in examination-in-chief and cross-examination of their witnesses, section 36 of the Act comes into operation. It is then not open to the trial court or to the appellate Court or revisional Court to go behind that order. Such an order is not one of those judicial order, which are liable to be reviewed or revised by the same court or a court of superior jurisdiction.

(3.) For the reasons recorded above, I do not find any merit in this petition as the document has already been admitted and marked by the trial court and this court on the revisional side cannot interfere. This petition, therefore, fails, and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.