The High Court, in a revision petition, allowed the plea that a document requiring registration and stamp duty cannot be used for a collateral purpose of showing possession. The impugned order allowing its production was set aside.
The order dated 19-01-2009 passed in O.S.No.217 of 2006 is set aside.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO
Dated:19th February 2010
C.R.P.No.3416 of 2009
Between:
Sonti Sambaiah …Petitioner And
Sonti Srinivasa Rao …Respondent
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO
C.R.P.No.3416 of 2009
ORDER:
Heard both sides and at their request the revision itself is taken up
for disposal.
The petitioner is a defendant. The question arising is in regard to admissibility of the document, which has been sought to be relied on by the plaintiff. The suit is one for partition and the document in question when sought to be relied upon and when an objection was raised, ultimately the Court below has held that since rights of the parties are created therein, the same is required to be stamped and registered. However, the Court below sought to proceed on the ground that it can be used for limited purpose of showing possession of the respondent herein.
It is this later version, which is under attack on the ground that once it is held to be a document which requires not only stamping but also registration, the same could not possibly be used even for such collateral
purposes. In support the learned counsel placed reliance on the
judgment of the apex Court in Avinash Kumar Chauhan Vs. Vijay
Krishna Mishra[1] .
Having considered the submissions and on perusal of the material
and in view of the principles laid down in the aforesaid decision, it can
safely be held that the observation of the court below in allowing such document where it requires registration apart from stamp duty could not possibly be used for collateral purpose.
The revision is accordingly allowed. The order dated 19-01-2009
passed in O.S.No.217 of 2006 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali is set aside. No costs.
_______________ B.PRAKASH RAO,J
Date:19-02-2010 Grk
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO
C.R.P.No.3416 of 2009
Dated: 19-02-2010
[1] 2009 (1) ALD 109 (SC)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a document requiring registration and stamp duty can be used for a collateral purpose of showing possession.
Whether the lower court order allowing the production of the impugned document was sustainable.
Whether the principles laid down in Avinash Kumar Chauhan case apply to admit the document usage.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Avinash Kumar Chauhan Vs. Vijay Krishna MishraFollowed¶16
2009 (1) ALD 109 (SC)
Sonti Sambaiah
Sonti Srinivasa Rao
B PRAKASH RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
