APHC010005022025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: Between: 1. Z R MOULI, DIED BY LRS. Z.SESHAMMA, W/O. Z.R.MOULI, AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS. 2. Z.JAYACHANDRA, , S/O. Z.R.MOULI AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS. 3. Z.NAGARJUNA RAO,, S/O. Z.R.MOULI, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS. 4. Z.RAKESH, , S/O. Z.R.MOULI, AGED HINDUS, THE PETITIONERS 1 TO 4 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR POWER ATTORNEY HOLDER K.INDIRA, D/O. (LATE) Z.R.MOULI, W/O. K.P.KUMAR R/O. D.NO. 65 5. K.INDIRA,, D/O. LATE Z.R.MOULI, W/O. K.P.KUMAR, R/O. D.NO. 86, FORT, KURNOOL CITY. 1. CHILAKALA SIVA REDDY, S/o. Late Nageswara Reddy, Aged about 77 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o. Atmakur Town AND Mandal, Kurnool District. 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 tobeg to present this memorandum of Civil Revision Petition to this Hon'ble Court being aggrieved by 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 78/2025 Z R MOULI, DIED BY LRS. Z.SESHAMMA, W/O. Z.R.MOULI, AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS. Z.JAYACHANDRA, , S/O. Z.R.MOULI AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS. Z.NAGARJUNA RAO,, S/O. Z.R.MOULI, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS. Z.RAKESH, , S/O. Z.R.MOULI, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS. ALL ARE HINDUS, THE PETITIONERS 1 TO 4 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR POWER ATTORNEY HOLDER K.INDIRA, D/O. (LATE) Z.R.MOULI, W/O. K.P.KUMAR R/O. D.NO. 65-86, FORT, KURNOOL CITY. K.INDIRA,, D/O. LATE Z.R.MOULI, W/O. K.P.KUMAR, R/O. D.NO. 86, FORT, KURNOOL CITY. ...PETITIONER(S) AND CHILAKALA SIVA REDDY, S/o. Late Nageswara Reddy, Aged about 77 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o. Atmakur Town AND Mandal, ...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 tobeg to present this memorandum of Civil Revision Petition to this Hon'ble Court being aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 29.11.2024 RC,J CRP No.78 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] MONDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Z R MOULI, DIED BY LRS. Z.SESHAMMA, W/O. Z.R.MOULI, AGED Z.JAYACHANDRA, , S/O. Z.R.MOULI AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS. Z.NAGARJUNA RAO,, S/O. Z.R.MOULI, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS. ABOUT 58 YEARS. ALL ARE HINDUS, THE PETITIONERS 1 TO 4 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR POWER ATTORNEY HOLDER K.INDIRA, D/O. (LATE) Z.R.MOULI, 86, FORT, KURNOOL CITY. K.INDIRA,, D/O. LATE Z.R.MOULI, W/O. K.P.KUMAR, R/O. D.NO. 65- ...PETITIONER(S) CHILAKALA SIVA REDDY, S/o. Late Nageswara Reddy, Aged about 77 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o. Atmakur Town AND Mandal, ...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 tobeg to present this memorandum of Civil Revision Petition to this the Order and Decree dated 29.11.2024 RC,J CRP No.78 of 2025 2 passed in I.A.No.178 of 2024 in O.S.No.15 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur under Article 227 of Constitution of India 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(S): 1. C PRAKASH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. CH MARKONDAIAH RC,J CRP No.78 of 2025 3 ORDER This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the legality and correctness of the order dated 29.11.2024 passed in I.A.No.178 of 2024 in O.S.No.15 of 2018 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur. 2. The Revision petitioners are the defendants whereas the respondent is the respondent/plaintiff in I.A.No.178 of 2024 in O.S.No.15 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur. 3. The facts that led to filing of the Civil Revision petition, in brief, are that in the suit filed by the respondent vide O.S.No.15 of 2018 for declaration that he is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property, the petitioner no.5 herein, who is defendant no.5, filed the petition vide I.A.No.178 of 2024 under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act and Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure to send the original Decree Transfer Khararunama dated 28.12.1999 executed by respondent/plaintiff in favour of Ganji Siva Rama Lingaiah and three others, contending that marking of the said document is necessary for proving Exs.B2 to B5. The respondent/plaintiff resisted the claim made by the petitioner no.5/defendant no.5 that the petition is silent for what collateral purpose the document is sought to be marked. The learned trial Judge, upon considering the pleadings and submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the petition, holding that the unregistered decree transfer deed does not carry any legal sanctity and so marking the RC,J CRP No.78 of 2025 4 document for any collateral purpose does not arise and hence there is no need to send the document for collection of stamp duty and penalty. 4. The order dismissing the said petition has been assailed in this Civil Revision Petition. 5. Heard Sri C.Prakash Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri Ch.Markondaiah, learned counsel for respondent. 6. Sri C.Prakash Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, while reiterating the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the petition covered under the impugned orders and the grounds of revision petition would contend that impounding the subject document for the purpose of marking the same for collateral purpose is very much essential to substantiate that the suit is not maintainable, since the decree passed in O.S.No.23 of 1987, which was transferred under the subject document, became time barred and the respondent/plaintiff is not entitled to seek declaration based on a time barred decree. He would further contend that the petitioners sought to mark the subject document after getting it impounded for collateral purpose of establishing that since the plaintiff had parted with the decree obtained by him in relation to the subject property in favour of third parties, he cannot have locus to file the suit, however, the court below unable to comprehend, RC,J CRP No.78 of 2025 5 dismissed the petition filed for sending the subject document for impounding. Accordingly, prayed to allow the civil revision petition. 7. On the other hand, Sri Ch.Markondaiah, learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff, justified the impugned orders contending that since the subject document was never acted upon and the petitioners were unable to specify the specific collateral purpose for which they intends to mark the document after getting it impounded, the learned trial Judge had rightly dismissed the petition holding that the petitioner has not got any right to question the unregistered decree transfer deed which does not carry any legal sanctity. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition. 8. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 9. Through the subject document a specific performance decree was transferred. As per Section 17(e) of the Registration Act, such a document is compulsorily registerable document. It is fairly settled that an unregistered compulsorily registerable document can be received in evidence, if the said document is sought to be used for collateral purpose, however after impounding the said document by collecting the necessary stamp duty with penalty. RC,J CRP No.78 of 2025 6 10. The learned trial Judge passed the impugned orders mainly on the ground that since the subject document does not carry any legal sanctity , the purpose of using the same for any collateral purpose does not arise. 11. Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act casts a statutory duty on the Courts to impound the document and collect the deficit stamp duty & penalty as per the provisions of the Act, when the document is admittedly not duly stamped to make good the loss caused to exchequer of the State Government. 12. In Parchuri Sireesha and another vs. Challapalli Jalaja1, this Court held as follows: “12. In the light of the settled legal position and the duty that is cast upon the learned Judge of the trial Court, the learned Judge is obliged nay duty bound to impound (seize/take possession of) the document and collect the deficit stamp duty & penalty as per the provisions of the Act, when the document is admittedly not duly stamped, and see that no loss of revenue is caused to the exchequer of the State Government. Therefore, turning a blind eye to the statutory mandate and dismissing of the petition of the defendants by the trial Court on the ground that no purpose would be served by collection of deficit stamp duty & penalty on the gift deed as it is unregistered, though compulsorily registerable, is erroneous as any document brought before a Court should comply with the requirement of Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act and the Court is duty bound to impound and collect deficit stamp duty & penalty, if any such document is found to be not duly stamped. In that view of the matter, this Court finds that the trial Court committed a grave error in refusing the request of the defendants to pass orders to collect stamp duty and penalty on the subject gift deed.” 1. 2019 SCC OnLine AP 268 RC,J CRP No.78 of 2025 7 13. The observations referred to above makes it clear that, the Court is duty bound to impound and collect deficit stamp duty & penalty, if any such document is found to be not duly stamped. 14. Despite making the application by the petitioners for sending the document for impounding, the trial Court dismissed the application that using the document for collateral purpose does not arise, which is duty bound to see that deficit stamp duty is collected to make good the loss caused to exchequer of the State Government. 15. The purpose for which a document is going to be marked cannot be gone in to at the time of reception of the document or at the time when the document like the one on hand is sought to be impounded. The aspect as to relevancy can well be gone into at the appropriate stage of the proceedings i.e. at the time of marking the document. 16. In view of the above, the trial Court not only failed in its duty enjoined by section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, but prematurely had taken up the task of deciding the purpose for which the document is sought to be marked, which can always be gone into at the appropriate stage. Therefore, the order impugned needs interference and the same has to be set aside. It is relevant here to note that it is fairly settled that impounding of a document does not create any new rights that what the document already conferred. RC,J CRP No.78 of 2025 8 17. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, setting aside the order dated 29.11.2024 passed in I.A.No.178 of 2024 in O.S.No.15 of 2018. Consequently, I.A.No.178 of 2024 in O.S.No.15 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur is allowed. The trial Court shall send the subject document for impounding to the District Registrar, Nandyal. The trial Court shall take steps for getting the document impounded at the earliest. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 9th day of February, 2026. RR