1 VS,J C.R.P.No.2968 of 2024 APHC010540102024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2968/2024 Between: 1. TONDAPU SUIYA NARAYANA REDDY,, S/O. VENKATA RAMAYYA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC- BUSINESS, R/O. D.NO. 28-1-11, MAIN ROAD. HOTEL BHEEMAS, KAKINADA, KAKINADA DISTRICT, (ERSTWHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT), ...PETITIONER AND 1. MANEPALLI NAGAMANI, W/o Late Bhaskara Rao, Aged about 74 years, Occ- Housewife, R/o D.No.28-7-40, lst Floor, F-1, Chittori Vari Street, Kakinada, Kakinada District, (erstwhile East Godavari District.) ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased tomay be pleased to SET ASIDE the docket order dated- 29.10.2024 made in I.A.No.l83 of 2024 in O.S.No. 16 of 2021 pending on the file of The 1 Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Kakinada, Kakinada District erstwhile East Godavari District by allowing the Civil Revision Petition and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S.N0.I6 of 2021 pending on the file of The I Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), 2 VS,J C.R.P.No.2968 of 2024 Kakinada, Kakinada District erstwhile East Godavari District, pending disposal of the above CRP and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to vacate the interim order dated 29.11.2024 passed in C.R.P. No.2968 of 2024 and dismiss the CRP with costs IA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to extend the interim order granted CRP No.2968/2024 on 29.11.2024 which was extended from time to time and pass IA NO: 3 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to direct the revision petitioner herein / defendant to pay the monthly rent regularly along with arrears from March, 2024 to till date with interest, pending disposal of the above C.R.P and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A K KISHORE REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. MANOJ KUMAR BETHAPUDI The Court made the following: 3 VS,J C.R.P.No.2968 of 2024 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/defendant challenging the docket order dated 29.10.2024 passed in O.S.No.16 of 2021 on the file of Court of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kakinada. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: (a) The petitioner herein runs hotel at various places in Kakinada and likewise, the petitioner took the plaint schedule property on lease from 01.10.2002 to 30.09.2012 by way of a registered lease deed bearing document No.7469 of 2002, dated 09.10.2002 and thereafter, the said lease was extended from 01.10.2012 to 30.09.2020 by way of another registered lease deed bearing document No.1382 of 2012, dated 17.02.2012. During the latter period of lease, the petitioner became rent defaulter in spite of several requests from the respondent/plaintiff. As such, the respondent/plaintiff filed O.S.No.16 of 2021 on the file of Court of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kakinada against the petitioner herein with a plea to evict the petitioner from the plaint schedule property and a direction was sought to the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.15,14,684/- towards arrears of rent. Pending the said suit, the respondent/plaintiff executed extension of lease period on 08.12.2021 for a further period of 10 years i.e. from 08.12.2021 to 07.12.2031. During the course of chief examination, as the petitioner did not file the said lease deed dated 08.12.2021 due to inadvertence, he filed three applications i.e. I.A.Nos.181, 182 and 183 of 2024, for reopening his evidence, for recalling 4 VS,J C.R.P.No.2968 of 2024 him and to receive the lease deed dated 08.12.2021. The said applications were allowed by the trial Court vide proceedings dated 11.09.2024 wherein it is stated as under: “This petition is filed Under order 8 rule 1 A 3 of CPC to receive the lease deed dated 08.12.2021 to mark the same through the petitioner/defendant. Notice given to the respondent. Counsel for the respondent reported no counter and no objection to allow this petition. Since the counsel for the respondent/plaintiff reported no counter and no objection. Hence this petition is allowed with no costs subject to proof and relevance.” (b) Subsequently, the trial Court has passed the impugned docket order dated 29.10.2024 denying to mark the lease deed dated 08.12.2021 on the ground that it is unregistered. Aggrieved by the same, this revision petition is filed. 3. When the petition came up for hearing on 29.11.2024 this Court has granted interim stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.16 of 2021on the file of Court of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kakinada, initially for a period of eight weeks, which was extended thereafter from time to time. 4. Heard Mr. A. K. Kishore Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Manoj Kumar Bethapudi, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the entire material available on record. 5. Admittedly, the respondent/plaintiff has filed the subject suit against the petitioner for his eviction from the plaint schedule property and for payment of arrears of rent. The petitioner, in the month of September, 2024 filed three 5 VS,J C.R.P.No.2968 of 2024 applications i.e. I.A.Nos.181, 182 and 183 of 2024 to reopen his evidence, recall him and to receive unregistered lease deed dated 08.12.2021. The trial Court, vide docket order dated 11.09.2024 allowed the applications filed by the petitioner by observing that the respondent/plaintiff has no objection for allowing the same. Subsequently, during the course of chief examination of the petitioner, when the proposed document was being marked, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff raised an objection that the lease deed dated 08.12.2021 cannot be marked as it is an unregistered document and thus it requires stamp duty and registration. The trial Court, relying upon various judgments passed in similar circumstances, came to a conclusion that the document dated 08.12.2021 being an unregistered lease deed, requires stamp duty and penalty as per Section 17 of the Registration Act. 6. For better appreciation of the case, relevant portion of Section 17 of the Registration Act is extracted hereunder: 17. Documents of which registration is compulsory.— (1) The following documents shall be registered, if the property to which they relate is situate in a district in which, and if they have been executed on or after the date on which, Act No. XVI of 1864, or the Indian Registration Act, 1866, or the Indian Registration Act, 1871, or the Indian Registration Act, 1877, or this Act came or comes into force, namely:— (a) instruments of gift of immovable property; (b) other non-testamentary instruments which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property; 6 VS,J C.R.P.No.2968 of 2024 (c) non-testamentary instruments which acknowledge the receipt or payment of any consideration on account of the creation, declaration, assignment, limitation or extinction of any such right, title or interest; and (d) leases of immovable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent;…” 7. It is the contention of the petitioner that an unregistered lease deed which has to be registered as per Section 17 of the Registration Act but was not registered, can be used for the purpose of proving the nature of possession. It is well settled law that unregistered lease executed by both the parties can be looked into for collateral purposes. The same legal principle was reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in K.B. Saha & Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Development Consultant Ltd., 1 wherein it was specifically observed that a document which is inadmissible for want of registration can, however, be used for a collateral purpose, namely, for proving the nature and character of possession. 8. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner herein is in possession of the plaint schedule property and the same is not disputed by the respondent/plaintiff. The petitioner proposed to bring on record the unregistered lease deed dated 08.12.2021 in support of his case. It is to be noted that the Apex Court, in K.B. Saha & Sons Pvt Ltd., case, held that an unregistered document can be used for a collateral purpose, i.e. only for proving the nature and character of possession. Relying on such unregistered document, the petitioner can prove that he is in possession of the schedule 1(2008) 8 SCC 564 7 VS,J C.R.P.No.2968 of 2024 property and not to prove or enforce the main transaction affecting immovable property. In such a case, when the possession of the petitioner in the plaint schedule property is admitted but not disputed, the question of proving the nature or character of such possession by relying upon the unregistered lease deed would not arise. Hence, the unregistered lease deed dated 08.12.2021 need not be relied upon or marked as evidence. The trial Court has rightly rejected the marking of the unregistered lease deed and the order passed by the trial Court need not be interfered by this Court. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date:31.10.2025 Gss