APHC010089062025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 688 OF 2025 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, CRP aggrieved by the Order dated 19-12-2024 passed in I.A. No. 869 of 2022 in O.S. No. 245 of 2016 by the Learned Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Allagadda, Kurnool District. Between: Gundam Gopal Reddy, S/o Malla Reddy, Aged about 65 Cultivation, R/o H.No. 205, M.I.G, Nandyal Town, Kurnool District. years, Occ; ...Petitioner herein/ Petitioner in I.A No. 869 of 2022/ Defendants in O.S No. 245 of 2016 AND 1. Gundam Bali Reddy, died) 2. Gundam Rama Subba Reddy, ( died) 3. Gundam Rama Krishna Reddy, ( died) 4. Pola Ramakrishna Reddy, , S/o Venkata Reddy Age not known, Occ Cultivation, R/o Kanala Village, Sanjamala Mandal, Kurnool District. 5. Pola Vinay Kumar Reddy Occ Cuftivation District. 6. G Krishnaveni, W/o Late G Rama Subba Reddy, Aged about 42 years, R/o Kanala Village, Sanjamala Mandal, Kurnool District. 7. G Vishnuvardhan Reddy, S/o Late G Rama Subba Reddy, Aged about 21 years, R/o Kanala Village, Sanjamala Mandal, Kurnool District. 8. G Venu Teja Reddy, S/o Late G Rama Subba Reddy Aged about 19 years, R/o Kanala Village, Sanjamala Mandal, Kurnool District. 9. Gunda Sreedevi, W/o Ramakrishna Reddy, Aged about 45 years, R/o Abdullapuram village, Velugodu Mandal Kurnool district. Gundam Praveen Kumar, Gundam Praveen Kumar, S/o Rama Krishna Reddy Aged about 23 years Velugodu Mandal, Kurnool district. S/o Ramakrishna Reddy Age not known R/o Kanala Village, Sanjamala Mandal Kurnool 10. R/o Abdullapuram village. ...Respondents/herein/Respondents in I.A No.869of 2022/Defendants in O.S No.245 of 2016. lA 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 to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S. No. 245 of 2016, on the file of the Hon’ble court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Allagadda, Kurnool District, A.P. Counsel for the Petitioner :M/S AYESHA AZMA S Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following order: APHC01008906202S IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Tuesday, the twenty fourth day of June two thousand and twenty five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No: 688 of 2025 Between: ...Petitioner Gundam Gopal Reddy and ...Respondents Gundam Bali Reddy (died) and others Counsel for the petitioner: I.Ayesha Azma.S Counsel for the respondents: -Nil- The Court made the following: ORDER: This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 19.12.2024 dismissing petition in I.A.No.869 of 2022 in O.S.No.245 of 2016 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda, Kurnool District, filed by the plaintiff under Sections 37 and 38 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and Section 151 of C.P.C., 1908, to send the unregistered settlement deed dated 20.01.1987 to the District Registrar, Nandyal to impound the stamp duty, penalty and registration fee. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. Along with the plaint. 2. C.R.P.No.688 of 2025 the unregistered document was filed without paying registration fee stamp duty and penalty. Since the petitioner / plaintiff No.6 did not stamp duty and penalty on the settlement deed, and he wants to mark the document in evidence, the petitioner contends that it is necessary to send the document to the District Registrar for the above said pay purpose. 3. The petition was opposed by filing counter of the respondents No.4 and 5 stating that there is no sufficient or good cause for allowing the petition and that in the document sought to be impounded stage, the recitals say that the possession was handed over to the petitioner, whereas at a later stage, it says that possession would be handed over after the death of the executant and at the end of it, it is mentioned that there is no share for anybody. Even if the document is impounded, it cannot be admitted in evidence as it is a compulsorily registerable document and no purpose would be served inspite of impounding as some of the respondents died and the others remained ex parte. at one 4. After hearing the petitioner and the contesting respondents, the trial Court dismissed the petition holding that the document requires registration under Section 17(1)(a) of the Registration Act 1908, for a gift deed and that as the entire suit is based on the said deed, in view of Section 49 of the Registration Act 1908, the document cannot be relied on by the petitioner terming the purpose for which the document is relied by the petitioner is collateral purpose. The trial Court further observed that by impounding the document, no purpose would be served. Hence, the petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the order, this revision petition was filed. R.1 to R.3 died. R.6 to R.8 are the legal representatives of R.2. R.9 and R.10 are the legal representatives of R.3. Inspite of service of notices on^R.4 and 5. 3 C.R.P.No.688 of 2025 R.5, there has been no appearance. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suit was filed not only for declaration of title, but also for permanent injunction and therefore, the plaintiff is required to prove not only title, but also possession of the property and therefore, a settlement deed which requires registration, though not registered, can be relied on for collateral purpose of proving possession and therefore, the observation of the trial Court that no purpose would be served by getting the 6. document impounded is incorrect and the further observation that the document does not serve the purpose for which it is relied on by the She also submitted that the collateral petitioner is also incorrect, purpose can be indicated when the document is tendered in evidence, but, for the present, the document can be sent for impounding. 7. As the reliefs claimed by the plaintiff in the suit are distinct, though interconnected, the plaintiff shall be allowed to establish the pleaded case of not only title, but also possession. Insofar as the possession is concerned, the plaintiff may be able to establish the same independently of the title. For that purpose, this document may be upheld. As such, it cannot be said that impounding of the document does not serve any purpose of collateral transaction. Therefore, even if a document requires registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act, but un-registered. Section 49 of the Registration Act permits such document to be received in evidence to prove collateral transaction which does not require registration. However, without paying necessary stamp duty, with penalty even for proof of collateral transaction, since the document cannot be looked into in evidence, it is necessary to get the document impounded. Moreover, as per Section 33 of the Stamp Act, 1899, it is the duty to impound a not duly stamped instrument. / 4 C.R.P.No.688 of 2025 “33. Examination and impounding of instruments. (1) Every person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, and every person-in-charge of a public office, except an officer of a police, before whom any instrument, chargeable, in his opinion, with duty, is produced or comes in the performance of his functions, shall, if it appears to him that such instrument is not duly stamped, impound the (2) For that purpose every such person shall examine every instrument so chargeable and so produced or coming before him, in order to ascertain whether it is stamped with a stamp of the value and description required by the law in force in India when such instrument was executed or first executed. Provided ...” Therefore, the impugned order requires interference in the same. revision. 8. In the result, the revision petition is allowed by setting aside the order dated 19.12.2024 in I.A.No.869 of 2022 in O.S.No.245 of 2016 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda, Kurnool District and the said i.A.No.869 of 2022 is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in this civil revision petition, shall stand closed. Sd/- G HELA NAIDU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Allagadda, Kurnool District. 2. OneCCto M/s. Ayesha Azma S., Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies MKP sree i HIGH COURT DATED:24/06/2025 ORDER CRP NO. 688 OF 2025 5 15 JUL 2025 . Current Secnon § ALLOWING THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS