R. Subhash Reddy, J.:— This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by defendants 1 and 2 in O.S No. 10 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalli, aggrieved of the order dated 08.07.2013 passed in the said suit.
2. The 1 respondent herein filed the aforesaid suit against the petitioners and other respondents for partition of item-1 of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares and for allotment of one such share to the plaintiff, partition of item-2 of the plaint schedule property into two equal shares and for allotment one such share to the plaintiff and for recovery of past profits. It is the case of the 1 respondent-plaintiff that he is the fostered son of Sri. Buddha Jaggayya, who executed registered will dated 22.05.1964 in sound and disposing state of mind, bequeathing his immovable properties to himself and the 1 defendant, who is the fostered daughter of Sri. Buddha Jaggayya, with absolute rights intervened by life estate in favour of his wife Mahalaxmamma, who died on 20.05.2001; hence, himself (plaintiff) and the petitioners herein are entitled to the plaint schedule property in equal shares. On behalf of the petitioners, written statement was filed and two documents were sought to be filed; one document dated 04.06.1975 claiming to be an agreement and another document dated 05.06.1975 claiming to be a memo. When such documents were sought to be filed on behalf of the petitioners, respondents raised an objection with regard to admissibility of the said documents on the ground that in the agreement dated 04.06.1975 there is a recital with regard to partition of joint property and in the memo dated 05.06.1975, the 2 party relinquished her right, as such, they are compulsorily registerable documents and are inadmissible for want of stamp duty and registration. The trial Court, having considered the objections of the parties, recorded a finding that the objections raised by the plaintiff are sustainable in law and the agreement dated 04.06.1975 and the memo dated 05.06.1975 are not admissible in evidence. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
4. It is submitted by Sri. N. Subba Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, that both the documents dated 04.06.1975 and 05.06.1975 are executed recording past partition and there are no recitals with regard to other partition of the properties or for relinquishment of rights. It is further submitted that as the said documents are executed prior to the Indian Stamp
(A.P Amendment) Act, 1986, which came into force with effect from 16.08.1986, no stamp duty is necessary.
5. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that a perusal of the said documents clearly indicates that there is partition of properties and relinquishment of rights; as such, the said documents are compulsorily registerable and in the absence of their registration, as contemplated under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, they are not admissible in evidence. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the respondents relied on the following judgments:
Dina Ji v. Daddi[1]
Mehrunnisa Begum v. M.A Khadar[2]
Karrothu Appalanaidu v. Korrothu Narayana[3]
6. It is well settled that the title of the document is not the criteria. The recitals of the document are to be looked into, to examine whether such document is admissible in evidence in the absence of payment of stamp duty and registration. As the said documents are in Telugu manuscript, during the course of hearing, true copies of typed documents in Telugu are produced. A reading of the said documents makes it clear that the agreement dated 04.06.1975 appears to have been executed between Smt. Mahalaxmamma, the mother of the plaintiff, the plaintiff and the husband of the 1 defendant. A reading of the contents of the document goes to show that there are recitals that the properties are partitioned by the documents themselves, but not regarding past partition.
7. The document dated 05.06.1975 also indicates partition of the properties and there are recitals of relinquishment. In view of the contents of the documents, this Court is of the view that both the documents are compulsorily registerable, in the absence of which they are not admissible in evidence. In the judgment in Dina Ji (1 supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in view of the provision under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908, in a document where any right in immovable property is either assigned or extinguished, it will require registration. In the judgment in Mehrunnisa Begum (2 supra), this Court has held that in view of the provision under Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, an unregistered document would become admissible for any collateral purpose if required stamp duty and penalty is paid on the document. It is further held that it cannot be admitted in evidence for any principal purpose. Further, in the judgment in Karrothu Appalanaidu (3 supra) this Court has held that the document, by which the property owned or held by co-owners is divided among them, by their own volition or if they arrive at on agreement to divide the property in severalty, is an instrument of partition which requires stamp duty under Schedule 1-A of the Indian Stamp Act and requires registration. All the aforesaid judgments would render assistance in support of the case of the respondents. Inasmuch as the suit is for partition, the documents in question cannot be admitted in evidence to adjudicate the principal issue of partition among the parties. In view of the aforesaid reasons and in view of the reasons recorded in the impugned order, this Court finds no merit in this Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
8. Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions if any pending stand closed. No order as to costs.