APHC010222012025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1166/2025 Between: 1. POLUBOTHU GOPALA RAO, S/O.LATE APPALA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/O DOOR NO.2-15-7, BONDADA STREET, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. POLUBOTHU MOHANA RAO, S/O. LATE APPALA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/O. KUSALARAJU QUARTERS, NEAR SBI, SRUNGAVARAPUKOTA, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 2. POLUBOTHU RAMA RAO, S/O. LATE APPALA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, RETD. RTC EMPLOYEE, MANDUGUNDU THOTA, NEAR MUNCIPAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, KATA VEEDHI, VIZIANAGARAM TOWN. 3. POLUBOTHU NARAYANA RAO DIED, A 4. POLUBOTHU AMMALU, W/O. LATE SRINIVASA RAO,AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O. OPP. SAIBABA TEMPLE, ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, PULIBOLAREDDY STREET. VISAKHAPATNAM. 5. POLUBOTHU KARTHIK, W/O. LATE SRINIVASA RAO, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O. OPP. SAIBABA TEMPLE, ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, PULIBOLAREDDY STREET. VISAKHAPATNAM. 6. POLUBOTHU PRASAD, W/O. LATE SRINIVASA RAO, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/O. OPP. SAIBABA TEMPLE, ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, PULIBOLAREDDY STREET. VISAKHAPATNAM. Page 2 of 7 7. POLOBOTHU RAMANAMMA, W/O LATE NARAYANARAO, AGED 69 YEARS, R/O D.NO.3-430, GANESH NAGAR, MORAMPUDI, RAJAHMUNDRY, EAST GODAWARI DISTRICT. 8. POLOBOTHU RAMAKANTH, S/O LATE NARAYANARAO, AGED 43 YEARS, R/O D.NO.3-430, GANESH NAGAR, MORAMPUDI, RAJAHMUNDRY, EAST GODAWARI DISTRICT. 9. POLOBOTHU JAGADEESH, S/O LATE NARAYANARAO, AGED 40 YEARS, R/O KYC NIVAS, STREET NO.6, KRCR COLONY, HYDERABAD. 10. KILAPARTI SANDYARANI, W/O BADRINATH, AGED 37 YEARS, R/O D.NO.3-430, GANESH NAGAR, MORAMPUDI,RAJAHMUNDRY, EAST GODAWARI DISTRICT. 11. POLOBOTHU SURYA RAO DIED, A 12. DOKARA CHINNAMMALU DIED, A 13. POLOBOTHU PARVATHI, W/O LATE SURYA RAO, AGED 70 YEARS, R/O NAGAVAMSAM STREET, PALAKONDA POST, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 14. RAYINA VIJAYALAXMI, W/O SRINIVASA RAO, AGED 46 YEARS, R/O D.NO.9-3-37, NALLA VEEDHI, VIZIANAGARAM TOWN. 15. POLUBOTHU KUMARI, D/O LATE SURYA RAO, AGED 44 YEARS, R/O NAGAVAMSAM STREET, PALAKONDA POST, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 16. POLUBOTHU VENKATESWARA RAO, S/O LATE SURYA RAO, AGED 45 YEARS, R/O NAGAVAMSAM STREET, PALAKONDA POST, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 17. POLUBOTHU SESHAGIRI RAO, D/O LATE SURYA RAO, AGED 43 YEARS, R/O NAGAVAMSAM STREET, PALAKONDA POST, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 18. MOKARA SANTHOSHI KUMARI, W/O RAVI, AGED 39 YEARS, RESIDENT OF PADAMATA BALAJI VEEDHI, VIZIANAGARAM. 19. DOKARA RAMADEVI, , D/O LATE RAVINDRA RAO, AGED 37 YEARS, R/O KOTHAPETA STREET, UNDI POST, WEST GODAWARI DISTRICT. Page 3 of 7 20. DOKARA VENKATA PYDIKUMAR, S/O LATE RAVINDRA RAO, AGED 38 YEARS, R/O KOTHAPETA STREET, UNDI POST, WEST GODAWARI DISTRICT. 21. DANNANA LAVANYA, W/O NARAYANARAO, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O NEAR RTC COMPLEX, OPP- COLLEGE ROAD, SRIKAKULAM TOWN. 22. MAJJI SARASWATHI, W/O CHANDRA RAO, AGED 60 YEARS, R/O SIRLI POTHANNA STREET, PALAKONDA, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT 23. KURIMINENI SOMASEKHAR, S/O APPALANAIDU, AGED 44 YEARS, R/O SIRIGUDU VEEDHI,BOBBILI, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.52 OF 2025 IN O.S.No. 59 OF 2017 on the file of the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam dated 26-3-2025 and allow the C.R.P 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 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A RAVI SHANKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. RAYAPROLU SRIKANTH The Court made the following: ::ORDER :: The plaintiff in the suit filed the above civil revision petition, aggrieved by the order dated 26.03.2025 passed in I.A.No.52 of 2025 in O.S.No.59 of 2017 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam. Page 4 of 7 2. Heard Sri A. Ravi Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri R. Srikanth, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 & 2. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the notices in respect of respondents 4 to 10 were returned as unserved. 4. The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.59 of 2017, seeking partition of the plaint schedule property and other reliefs. Pending the suit, the defendants 2 to 4, 6 to 8 and 20 to 23 filed I.A.No.52 of 2025 to send a document i.e. partition list dated 26.12.1994, to the Sub-Registrar Office, Palakonda, for impounding. The plaintiff filed a counter-affidavit and opposed the application. The Trial Court, by order dated 26.03.2025, dismissed the application. However, the Trial Court observed that the defendants can mark the said document for a limited purpose to establish a severance in status. 5. Sri A. Ravi Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the Trial Court, having recorded a finding that the document dated 26.12.1994 is a partition deed, ought not to have observed that it can be marked for the purpose of establishing a severance in status without impounding the document. 6. Sri Srikanth, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 & 2, would submit that the defendants 2 to 4, 6 to 8 and 20 to 23 filed an interlocutory application to send the document for impounding. He would also submit that if the document is impounded by collecting necessary stamp duty and penalty as per the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), it can be used for a collateral purpose. 7. The point for consideration is : “Whether the order dated 26.03.2025 in I.A.No.52 of 2025 in O.S.No.59 of 2017 passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, suffers from any illegality? 8. As seen from the plaint filed along with revision, the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.59 of 2017 against the defendants seeking partition of the plaint schedule properties into 7 equal shares. The suit is coming up for evidence of the defendants. The defendants sought to mark the document dated 26.12.1994, and the plaintiff objected to the marking of the same. Thereafter, the defendants 2 to 4, 6 to 8 and 20 to 23 filed I.A.No.52 of 2025 to send the document for impounding. 9. The Trial Court in para No.6 of the order dated 26.03.2025 observed that the recital in the document demonstrates the division of properties and allotment of shares to the respective sharers. The Trial Court also observed that if the document is stamped, it can be used for a collateral purpose. Having observed, the Court below, for the reasons best known, failed to order the I.A. 10. An unregistered document cannot be admitted in evidence, even for a collateral purpose, unless it is properly stamped. The Larger Bench of Composite High Court in Chinnapareddigari Pedda Muthyalareddy v. Chinnapareddigari Venkatareddy and others1, considered the issue regarding the admissibility of a partition deed in the absence of registration stamp duty. 11. In the case at hand, the document is dated 26.12.1994, being a partition deed (as per the Trial Court, the document is not placed before this Court), unless the document is properly stamped, it cannot be admitted in evidence even for a collateral purpose. The defendants, in fact, prayed the Court to send the document for impounding. 12. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with the following directions: (i) The order passed by the Court below is hereby set aside. (ii) The Trial Court shall send the document dated 26.12.1994 to the District Registrar for stamping in terms of Sections 33 and 35 of the Act. 1 1969 (1) ALT 375 (L.B.) (iii) After determining a deficit stamp duty and penalty, the defendants shall pay the deficit stamp duty and penalty. (iv) Thereafter, the Trial Court may consider the document dated 26.12.1994 for collateral purposes only, subject to fulfilling all the requisites. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 10.10.2025 TVN 130 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETTION No.1166 OF 2025 Date: 10.10.2025 TVN