Dismissed

M. Sreenivasulu Reddy v. M. Abbi Reddy

Telangana HC4 Nov 2011CRP/3922/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil Revision Petition challenging dismissal of application to send unregistered relinquishment deed to Revenue Officer. Court held unregistered deeds inadmissible for principal purpose. High Court dismissed petition exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227.

What did the court decide?

Civil revision petition dismissed with no costs; no interference with order refusing to send unregistered deed to Revenue officer.

M. Sreenivasulu Reddy Vs M. Abbi Reddy — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3922 of 2011

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 26.08.2010, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor District, dismissing the application in I.A. No. 363 of 2010 in I.A. No. 490 of 2007 in I.A. No. 555 of 2006 in O.S. No. 274 of 2006 filed by the petitioner praying to send unregistered relinquishment deed dated 20.09.2000 to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor, for impounding and collection of stamp duty and penalty thereon.

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order under revision.

¶6

The relinquishment deed dated 20.09.2000, which the petitioner sought to send to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor, is an unregistered document. The relinquishment deed, being an unregistered document, is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration and deficiency of stamp duty. In Telugu Kishna Mohan v. Smt. Boggula Padmavath i^[1] , this Court held that an unregistered relinquishment deed is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration inasmuch as the purpose for which the document is being relied upon is the principal purpose not for any collateral purpose and the question of sending such document to the Revenue Divisional Officer for levying of stamp duty and penalty also does not arise. In the instant case also, the petitioner is relying on the unregistered relinquishment deed for the purpose of claiming title to the property and not for any collateral purpose and, therefore, no fault can be found

¶7

with the order under revision passed by the Court below, refusing to send the unregistered relinquishment deed to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor, for impounding and collection of stamp duty and penalty thereon. I find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the order under revision, in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶8

The civil revision petition is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

¶9

__________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 4^th November, 2011 IBL

¶10

[1] 2009 (5) ALT 132

M. Sreenivasulu Reddy v. M. Abbi Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Sreenivasulu Reddy v. M. Abbi Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P. Nagabushanam Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Endowments

C.Babu Reddy Vs C.v.Venkatasiva Rao

Smt.Lakshmi Vs S.Ramakrishnan

M.Subhadramma Vs P.Surendra Reddy

K.M.Natarajan Vs S.S.R.Kamadalam

P.K.Nagaraj Vs Smt. Bapanapalli Ellamma