APHC010001132021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 6/2021 Between: 1. SUNKARA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA @ NARAYANA @ S.S.NARAYANA,, S/O LATE SRI CHINNA RAO, HINDU, AGE 57 YEARS, OCC RTC DRIVER, R/O NEW GAJUWAKA, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530 026 2. SUNKARA GOPI,, , S/O LATE SRI CHINNA RAO, HINDU, AGE 50 YEARS, OCC PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT, R/O GUNTUPALLI - 521 241, IBRAHIMPATNAM MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. AMALAKANTI PRASAD, S/O LATE SRI SURI BABU, R/O RAJEEV GRUHAKALPA, NEAR SRINIVASA THEATRE, TUNI - 533 401, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 2. AMALAKANTI SRINU, S/O LATE SRI SURI BABU, RIO RAJEEV GRUHAKALPA, NEAR SRINIVASA THEATRE, TUNI - 533 401, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 3. AMALAKANTI SIVA, S/O LATE SRI SURI BABU, RIO RAJEEV GRUHAKALPA, NEAR SRINIVASA THEATRE, TUNI - 533 401, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 4. AMALAKANTI MAHESH, S/O SRI BABU RAO, R/O GOTTIMUKKALA RAJU GARI STREET, SEETHARAMAPURAM - 533 449, TUNI MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 2 5. AMALAKANTI DHANAMJAYA, S/O SRI BABU RAO, IRA) GOTTIMUKKALA RAJU GARI STREET, SEETHARAMAPURAM - 533 449, MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 6. AMALAKANTI CHANDRASEKHAR, S/O SRI BABU RAO, RIO GOTTIMUKKALA RAJU GARI STREET, SEETHARAMAPURAM - 533 449, TUNI MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 7. KODURU VENKATARATNAM, W/O SRI DEVUDU, RIO GOTTIMUKKALA RAJU GARI STREET, SEETHARAMAPURAM - 533 449, TUNI MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 8. INTI BHULAXMI, W/O SRI SATYA RAO, MEHARNAGAR, KONDAYYAPALEM, KAKINADA - 533 003, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 9. KODURU VENKATA LAXMI, W/O LATE SRI SUBBA RAO, R/O GOTTIMUKKALA RAJUGARI STREET, SEETHARAMAPURAM TUNI - 533 449, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 10. MADAPALA RAMANAMMA, W/O SRI RAJENDRA KUMAR R/O RANTHADA VILLAGE - 531 133, G.K.VEEDI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM 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 call for the records relating to the order made in O.S.No.148 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Cum I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tuni, dated 09-12-2020 and set aside the same and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2021 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.148 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class — Cum — I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tuni, pending disposal of the present Civil Revision Petition and pass 3 A NO: 1 OF 2023 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 extend the interim order granted in CRP No. 6 of 2021 dated 05-01-2021 and extended from time to time, pending disposal of the CRP 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 to permit him to takeout notice on the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in CRP No. 6 of 2021 through substitute service by way of paper publication in any of the Daily Newspapers having circulation in Kakinada District 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 to bring the Petitioners 2 to 4 herein, being the Legal Representatives of the deceased 1st Petitioner viz., Sunkara Venkata Satyanarayana @ Narayana @ S.S.Narayana as Petitioners 3 to 5 in the present C.R.P. and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. N SIVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K S MURTHY The Court made the following: 4 Order:- The present Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order passed by the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tuni, in O.S. No.148 of 2014. 2. The issue which fell for consideration before the trial Court is the question of admissibility of the relinquishment deed dated 13.07.1973 and the undertaking letter dated 30.12.1970, as an objection was raised by the defendants with regard to both the documents being essentially required to be registered. The learned Judge considered the issue and held that the relinquishment deed dated 13.07.1973 executed in favour of Sunkara Chinnarao and Simhachalam by Koduru Demullu and Amalakanti Kondamma is not admissible in evidence for want of registration. However, the undertaking letter dated 30.12.1970, coupled with the deposit of title deeds and the first mortgage deed for creation of mortgage, was found admissible for collateral purposes. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that the relinquishment deed dated 13.07.1973 is for collateral purposes only. It is submitted that the petitioners sought to mark the relinquishment deed dated 13.07.1973 and the undertaking letter dated 30.12.1970, and at that point of time, the plaintiffs in the suit raised an objection that these documents could not be marked in evidence as neither of them was duly stamped in accordance with the Stamp Act. On such objection, the learned Judge 5 impounded the documents and forwarded them to the District Collector for determination of the applicable stamp duty. The defendants have subsequently paid the deficit stamp duty as determined by the competent authority and sought to mark them in evidence, and at that point of time, on objections raised by the plaintiffs, the impugned order has been passed. 4. It is submitted that the relinquishment deed dated 13.07.1973 is only for collateral purposes and, as such, the same could be marked subject to proof and relevancy. 5. Reliance is placed on the judgment passed by this Court in C.R.P. No.176 of 2012, whereby a similar issue fell for consideration and this Court held that an unregistered document could be marked in evidence only for collateral purposes. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, that the suit is filed for partition of the property and that the relinquishment deed is only for establishing the possession of the property, insofar as the bona fide rights of the parties for claiming their shares in the family property are concerned, the same would have to be established independently without placing reliance on the relinquishment deed dated 13.07.1973. At the most, the said document can be referred to or relied upon for the purpose of establishing the adverse possession. 6 7. On these considerations, this Court is of the considered view that the order passed by the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum- I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tuni, deserves to be modified to the extent of permitting the petitioners to mark the relinquishment deed dated 13.07.1973, which is adequately stamped, though unregistered, for collateral purposes only. 8. With these observations, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 11.02.2026 PNS