Disposed

Uppari Venkatararnudu v. Uppari Narayana

Andhra Pradesh HC25 Apr 2024CRP/1147/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a partition suit, the trial court ordered an unregistered gift deed marked by defendants to be impounded with deficit stamp duty and penalty for collateral-purpose use. The High Court reviewed precedents on admissibility of unstamped documents and directed the trial court to follow the collateral-purpose procedure per prior decisions before admitting the document.

What did the court decide?

CRP disposed of directing the trial court to permit payment of deficit stamp duty and penalty and then assess admissibility for collateral purpose per precedential guidance; no costs.

Uppari Venkatararnudu Vs Uppari Narayana — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶2

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF APRIL

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1147 OF 2021

¶7

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the docket order of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool passed in O.S.No.311/2014 dated 13.09.2021.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Uppari Venkatararnudu, S/o. Uppari Narayana, Aged about 47 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Ulchala Village, Kurnool Mandal, Kurnool District.

¶10

Uppari Hanugianthu, S/o. Uppari Narayana, Aged about 43 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Ulchala Village, Kurnool Mandal, Kurnool District.

¶11

...Petitioners/Palintiffs

¶12

AND

¶13

Uppari Narayana, S/o. Uppari Anjaneya @ Moogenna, Aged about 76 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. H.No.25/300-G1 Srinivasa Nagar

¶14

Nandyal, Kurnool District.

¶15

U. Madavulu, S/o. Uppari Narayana, Aged about 51 years, Occ. Police Constable, R/o. H.No.25/300-G1, Srinivasa Nagar, Nandyal, Kurnool District.

¶16

Uppari Srinivasulu, S/o. Uppari Narayana, Aged about 41 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Ulchala Village, Kurnool Mandal, Kurnool District.

¶17

...Respondents/Defendants

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶19

Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be V ^pleased to stay all further proceedings including trial in OS.No.311/2014 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool pending disposal of the revision.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI. G SRAVAN KUMAR

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI. U RAMANJANEYULU

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

/«.■

APHC010397002021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶27

[3458]

¶28

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶29

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF APRIL

¶30

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶31

PRESENT

¶32

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

¶33

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1147/2021

¶34

Between;

¶35

Uppari Venkatararnudu and Others

¶36

...PETITIONER(S)

¶37

AND

¶38

Uppari Narayana and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

¶39

Counsel for the Petltioner(S):

¶40

1.G SRAVAN KUMAR

¶41

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.U RAMANJANEYULU

2.U RAMANJANEYULU

3.U RAMANJANEYULU

The Court made the following:

¶46

ORDER;

¶47

This Civil Revision Petition challenges the docket order dated 13-09-2023 in O.S. No.311 of 2014 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, under which the unregistered gift deed was sent for impounding to collect stamp duty and penalty. The said order directed defendant

¶48

¶49

No.2 (DW-1) to pay the deficit stamp duty and a penalty of Rs.1,100/- for receiving the same in evidence for collateral purposes.

¶50

For the sake of convenience, the petitioners and respondents hereinafter, are referred to as plaintiffs and defendants, as arrayed before the Court below.

¶51

The plaintiffs and the defendants constitute one family. Defendant No.1 is the father of the plaintiffs and^{defendantsNo.2&3.} The plaintiffs filed suit for partition. The plaintiffs^{contendthatthedefendantNo.1} was the only son of one Sri. Uppari Anjaneya @ Moogenna. Sri Uppari Anjaneya @ Moogenna, plaintiffs and the defendants constitute one family and father of defendant No.1 had possessed house properties and agricultural lands. And that he aisp owned Ac.12.00 of land in Sy.No,60/1 of Baswapuram Village (plaint schedule land). From the total area of Ac.12.00, the defendant inherited Ac.6-00 from his ancestors. He then purchased the remaining Ac.6.00 in the name of his son (D-1) on [27.03.1997], using joint family funds. The plaintiffs contend that in pursuance of an oral partition that was agreed on 08.05.2003, Sri. Uppari Anjaneya @ Moogenna, partitioned ail his properties situated in Ulchala Village, among his son (D-1) and grandchildren (plaintiffs and D Nos.2 & 3) and the same was reduced into writing and he kept the Ac. 12-00 of land in Sy. No.60/1 of Baswapuram village, for himself (plaint schedule land).it is contended that in the said partition, plaintiff Nos.1 & 2, respectively, got the properties as shown in the C^{&Dscheduleofthe}

¶52

¶53

►re

¶54

partition deed. Similarly, it is stated that defendant Nos.1, 2 & 3 got the A, B & E schedule properties respectively towards their share. Ever since the partition, all of the coparceners are stated to have been in possession and enjoyment of their respective shares whereas Sri. Uppari Anjaneya @ Moogenna was in possession and enjoyment of the plaint^{schedulelandtillhis} intestate death. The further contention of the plaintiffs^{isthatafterthedeathof} Sri. Uppari Anjaneya @ Moogenna, the plaint schedule land has been in joint possession and enjoyment of plaintiffs and the defendants, who got 1/5*^ joint share each and on coming to know that defendant No.2 had been pressurizing defendant No.1 to immediately transfer the plaint schedule land in his name, it is stated that the 1®* plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated 15.05.2014, to defendant Nos.1 & 2, to refrain from doing so and to immediately partition the land among all the coparceners. It is stated that the plaintiff, apprehending that defendant No.1 may at any time transfer the entire plaint schedule land in the name of defendant No.2, though he has no right or title to do so, filed the subject suit.

¶55

The defendant No.1 filed his written statement and counter claim contending that Sri. Uppari Anjaneya @ Moogenna, had^{transferredAc.6-00} cents of land to his only son i.e., defendant No.1 by way of unregistered gift deed in the year 1985 and from the date of execution of the said gift deed Uppari Narayana,i.e., the defendant no.1, became absolute owner, and was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property. In support his contention, has filed the unregistered gift deed.^{Hefurthercontendedthat}

¶56

¶57

the document was filed only for collateral purpose in order to prove the possession of defendant No.1 and sought to receive the said unregistered gift document.

¶58

During the suit proceedings, the defendant No.1 died. The 2"^^ defendant filed his affidavit-in-chief to examine himself as DW-1 and the unregistered gift deed dated 25-06-1983 was sought to be marked by defendant No.2. The plaintiffs objected to the marking of the same as the same was an unregistered document. The defendants contended that after collecting the deficit stamp duty and penalty, the unregistered and unstamped document could be received in evidence for collateral purposes under Sec.49 of the Registration Act. The learned trial Judge, relying on the decision of this Court in the case of Parchuri Sireesha & anr Vs. Challpalli Jalaja\ observed that the unregistered and unstamped document could be received in evidence for collateral purpose after rectifying the defect of deficit stamp duty and by levy of penalty. He accordingly directed the defendants to pay the deficit stamp duty and penalty on the unregistered and unstamped gift deed, which was determined by him at Rs.1,100/-. Assailing the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has filed.

¶59

Heard Ms. Vinodini Ruth, learned counsel representing the Sri G. Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri U. Ramanjaneyulu, learned counsel for the respondents.

^ 2020 (1) ALD 162

The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the documentⁱⁿ dispute is a gift deed, which is a compulsorily registerable^{documentunderthe} provisions of Sec. 17 of the Registration Act. The document was not registered and unstamped, so it cannot be received as evidence, even for collateral purposes. And she relies on the following decisions;

¶64

i) Ranga Reddy Vs. Sandhu Padamma & ors^.

¶65

ii) Shaik Khadaru Masthan Vs. Sayyed Fathimun Bee^,

¶66

iii) Vangala Laxmamma Reddy Vs. Pasham Narsi Reddy^{&ors'^.}

¶67

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents, relying on the decision of this Court in the case of Parchuri Sireesha & anr Vs. Challpalli Jalaja, (supra) contends that the learned trial Judge had directed the document for collection of stamp duty and penalty for receiving the document in evidence for “collateral purposes alone”. In fact, the defendant No.2 in the affidavit- in-chief, has stated that the gift deed was filed by him, for collateral purpose, in order to prove the possession^{ofthedefendantNo.1.}

¶68

Perused the order under revision, and the material^onrecord.

¶69

The decision of this Court relied upon by the learned trial Judge is based on the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex^{CourtinthecaseofK.B.}

¶70

^ 2002(6) ALD752

¶71

^ 2007(6) ALD 482

¶72

''air 2010 AP 158

¶73

¶74

Saha & Sons Pvt Ltd. Vs Development Consultant Ltd./and^thedecision in the case of Avinash Kumar Chouhan Vs. Vijay Krishna^{Mishra^.}

¶75

The decisions of this Court in the case of Ranga Reddy^Vs. Sandhu Padamma & ors and Shaik Khadaru Masthan Vs. Sayyed Fathimun Bee, relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, were prior to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court^{inthecaseofKB.Saha&} ors, and in Vangala Laxmamma Reddy Vs. Pasham Narsi Reddy & ors the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case^{ofK.BSahawasnot} referred to. And the judgment of this Court in the^{caseofParchuriSireesha&} anr Vs. Challpalli Jalaja referred supra is a subsequent^decisionand is after referring to the subsequent decision of the apex court.

¶76

The learned trial Judge, following this Court's decision, in Parchuri Sireesha & anr Vs. Challpalli Jalaja, though rightly directed the petitioner to pay the deficit stamp duty and penalty, however, observed that upon payment of the said deficit stamp duty and penalty,^{thedocumentwould} be received for collateral purposes. Whereas this Court in the case of

¶77

Parchuri Sireesha & anr Vs. Challpalli Jalaja, has^{observedasunder:}

¶78

“16. In the considered view of this Court, merely on according permission to the defendants to pay the stamp duty and penalty on the gift deed in question and on collection of the same, no automatic right to have the gift deed exhibited for collateral purpose would either^accrueto the defendants or be conferred on the defendants, as^the

¶79

^ 2008 (8) see 56 ^ 2009(1) ALD109(Se)

¶80

¶81

trial Court would be required to consider what is a collateral purpose before receiving the gift deed in evidence for collateral purpose, in the event of payment of deficit stamp duty & penalty payable on the said instrument. The word 'collateral purpose' is explained in the decision of the Supreme Court in K.B. Saha and sons Pvt. Ltd., V. Development Consultant Limited (2008) 8 SCC 56 wherein the Supreme Court held, "A document required by law^tobe registered, if unregistered, is inadmissible as evidence of a transaction affecting immovable property, but it may be admitted as evidence of collateral facts, or for any^collateral purpose that is for any purpose other than that of creating, declaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing a right to immovable property."

¶82

Further, as per section 49 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, a document, which is required by law to^be registered, if not registered, shall not affect any^immovable property comprised therein. ”

¶83

¶84

This Court further observed at para No. 19 of the order as under;

¶85

In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and IA No. 37 8 of 2017 in lA No.785 of 2016 in O.S. No.291 of 2016 on the file of III Additional District Court, Guntur, is allowed directing the Trial Court to permit the defendants to pay the deficit stamp duty & penalty on the deed of gift In question and collect the same or do the needful by following^the procedure established by law. It is made clear that in the event the deficit stamp duty and penalty are paid by^the defendants as determined, the Trial Court shall then consider the admissibility of the said instrument for any collateral purpose, if any such request is made, however, following the precedential guidance of the Supreme^Court wherein the words ‘collateralpurpose’ are explained.”

¶86

¶87

“collateral purposes” in terms of the judgment of this^Courtin

¶88

the case of Parchuri Sireesha & anr Vs. Challpalli Jalaja.

¶89