APHC010168862019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] THURSDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1477/2019 Between: Uppalapati Umamaheswara Rao ...PETITIONER AND Boppudi Padma and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K S MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. . 2 The Court made the following order: The present revision petition is filed questioning the order dated 08.04.2019 passed in OS.No.92 of 2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Addanki, Prakasam District. 2. The petitioner is the 1st defendant in the suit. The 1st respondent/plaintiff filed suit in OS No.92/2012 for partition, against the petitioner and the respondent Nos.2 to 8 before the Senior Civil Judge, Addanki. Pending the suit, the petitioner herein sought to mark acceptance letter dated 25.08.2010 (oppudala patram) said to have been executed by respondent Nos.2 to 4. Upon which, the 1st respondent/plaintiff has taken an objection on the ground that, the said acceptance letter is a document which is compulsorily registerable under Section 17 of the Registration Act, and unless the same is registered, it cannot be received as evidence. After hearing the parties the trial Court by impugned order refused to receive the said acceptance letter, which is being impugned in the present revision petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Despite service of notice, none appeared for the respondents. 4. Perused the material available on record. 5. On a careful reading of the document i.e., the acceptance letter, the recitals mentioned therein are very clear that, the 3 respondent Nos.2 to 4 have unequivocally relinquished their rights over the properties and on further perusal of the same, it is clear that, they have agreed to share the remaining properties between them after the demise of the 1st defendant, meaning thereby, the respondent Nos.2 to 4 have relinquished their rights over the properties, leaving it open to the 1st defendant. Therefore, the document sought to be admitted in evidence cannot be considered unless the same is registered as per Section 17 of the Registration Act, in view of the clear bar contended under Section 49 of the Registration Act. 6. In that view of the matter, there is no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the trail Court and the same does not warrant interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. However, it is always open to the petitioner to take steps in accordance with law, if he is so advised. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR Dt.30.01.2025 DSB 4 405 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR CRP No.1477 of 2019 Date 30.01.2025 DSB