APHC010510052025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Wednesday, the eleventh day of March Two thousand and twenty six The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition Between: Mopur Chandrasekhar and Battalu Thimmappa Nagesh Counsel for the petitioner: 1. D.Shyam Sunder Counsel for the respondents: 1. N. Aswartha Narayana The Court made the IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Wednesday, the eleventh day of March Two thousand and twenty six Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No.3111 of 2025 Mopur Chandrasekhar Nagesh and others ...Respondents etitioner: D.Shyam Sunder Counsel for the respondents: N. Aswartha Narayana The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3311] Wednesday, the eleventh day of March Two thousand and twenty six The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi ...Petitioner ...Respondents 2 BSB, J C.R.P.No.3111 of 2025 ORDER: This petition is filed by the plaintiff under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 16.07.2025 dismissing the petition in I.A.No.185 of 2025 in O.S.No.143 of 2010 on the file of the Court of Prl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ananthapuramu filed by the plaintiff under section 61 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and Order XIII, Rule 3 and Section 151 C.P.C. to direct the defendant No.1 to pay stamp duty and penalty after filing the original of the document of rectification, dated 14.02.1986, marked as Ex.B7 before the Court and if the defendant No.1 fails to do so, the Court to de-exhibit Ex.B7. 2. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property of land of Ac.4.00 in S.No.37 of Rayadurg town, Ananthapuramu District and for its recovery of possession to the plaintiff. Initially, this suit was filed against only one defendant. Subsequently, defendants Nos.2 to 10 were impleaded as per the order dated 26.12.2017, in I.A.No.322 of 2016. 3. The plaintiff pleaded that his mother purchased the property from Chinna Siddappa on 30.06.1982 under a registered sale deed and obtained its possession and enjoyed it thereafter and that his father died on 24.10.1987 and his mother died on 03.08.2003 leaving behind the plaintiff as the sole legal heir and thus he has been enjoying the property since the date of death of his mother, but as the defendant No.1 had high handedly encroached the plaint schedule property in the absence of the plaintiff in the village, the suit was filed. 3. 3. The suit was resisted by filing the written statement by defendant No.4 denying the title of the plaintiff and further pleading that one Bheemakka 1st wife of Chinna Siddappa (vendor under the sale deed 3 BSB, J C.R.P.No.3111 of 2025 dated 30.06.1982) and Bheemakka got the plaint schedule property from her ancestors and therefore her husband Chinna Siddappa had no right to transfer the property to the mother of the plaintiff as he had no right over it; that Bheemakka and her husband jointly had sold the said property to Smt. Uma Devi under a registered sale deed dated 29.04.1998 and delivered the same to the purchaser; that thereafter, Smt. Uma Devi had sold the said property to Lakshmi Devamma under a registered sale deed dated 05.06.2002 and delivered the property to the purchaser; that Lakshmi Devamma had sold the same to this defendant under a registered sale deed dated 28.09.2005 and delivered its possession; that this defendant had sold the said property under two separate sale deeds dated 17.09.2010 to Sri B.Siddappa and Sri B.Eswarappa and put them in possession of their respective part of the property; that the names of the purchasers were mutated in the revenue records and pattadar pass books and title deeds were issued in their favour; that the suit is bad for misjoinder of necessary parties; that having knowledge of these transactions, the plaintiff had filed unjust suit by suppressing the transactions; that this defendant is not in possession of the property from the date of sales; that the plaintiff has never been in the possession of the property; that the pleading of the plaintiff that he is the only child to his parents is incorrect as his parents have three more sons and five daughters and that the suit is liable to be dismissed. 4. During the course of trial, the defendant No.1 was examined as D.W.1. In the cross-examination of D.W.1 by the plaintiff, he admitted that he is in possession of rectification deed, dated 14.02.1986. 5. Thereafter, through the witness for defendant No.1 examined as D.W.2, a photostat copy of ‘Oppudala Khararunama’, dated 14.02.1986, was sought to be filed into Court. It was objected for it’s receipt in 4 BSB, J C.R.P.No.3111 of 2025 evidence as secondary evidence. Then, the defendant No.1 filed I.A.No.243 of 2019 to receive it as secondary evidence. On 31.08.2019, the petition in I.A.No.243 of 2019 was dismissed. Against the said order, the defendant No.1 filed C.R.P.No.2975 of 2019 before this High Court. On 10.03.2023, the revision petition was allowed. On 11.03.2024, the trial Court marked the photostat copy of the unregistered Oppudala Khararunama, dated 14.02.1986, as Ex.B7 though the counsel for the plaintiff raised an objection that the document is liable for stamp duty and penalty. 6. Then, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.185 of 2025 seeking the above noted relief on the ground that though the document was marked as secondary evidence, the trial Court has ample power to direct the respondent No.1 / defendant No.1 to pay required stamp duty and penalty on the document after its original is filed in Court. 7. The petition was opposed by filing a counter mainly stating that the order of the High Court in C.R.P.No.2975 of 2019 has become final and now the petitioner cannot re-agitate the same objection and that the petition was filed with an intention to drag on the matter on one ground or the other. It is also contended that when a document is marked once, the question of challenging the same on the ground of deficit stamp duty does not arise. 8. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court dismissed the petition in view of the order of this High Court in the previous revision petition in C.R.P.No.2975 of 2019, more particularly, the present objection was even raised by the plaintiff before the High Court in that revision petition. 9. Aggrieved by the order, this revision petition was filed. 5 BSB, J C.R.P.No.3111 of 2025 10. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that though objection to receive the photostat copy as a secondary evidence cannot be re-agitated in view of the finality of the order in the previous revision petition, it is open for the petitioner to contend that the document cannot be looked into for want of necessary stamp duty and penalty as it is the statutory obligation of the Court to get the necessary stamp duty with penalty collected and that though the said ground was argued before the High Court during the course of arguments of the revision petition, the same had not been answered in the order, whereas the revision petition was confined only to the objection regarding receipt of photostat copy of the document in evidence as secondary evidence. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in S.Mohan Krishan Vs. V. Varalakshmamma1, Bidyut Sarkar & Another Vs. Kanchilal Pal (Dead) through Lrs. & Another2, B.V.Krishna Reddy Vs. Devathi Nagaraja Gupta3. 11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted that the trial Court had rightly dismissed the petition in view of the finality of the order in the revision petition and that since the objection was regarding not only photostat copy as secondary evidence but also requirement of registration and also necessary stamp duty and penalty were argued before the High Court and rejecting the contentions, the document was allowed to be received in evidence as 1 2017 (5) ALD 228 2 2025 (2) ALD (SC) 201 3 2023 0 Supreme (AP) 622 6 BSB, J C.R.P.No.3111 of 2025 secondary evidence. Therefore, he vehemently contended that there is no merit in the revision petition. 12. In S. Mohan Krishan (1 supra), it was held at paragraphs Nos.34 to 37 as follows: “34. Article 227 deals with power of superintendence by the High Court over all Subordinate Court and Tribunals. The power of superintendence conferred upon the High Court by Article 227 is not confined to administrative superintendence only, but includes the power of judicial revision also even where no appeal or revision lies to the High Court under the ordinary law, rather power under this Article is wider than that of Article 226 in the sense that it is not subject to those technicalities of procedure or traditional fetters which are to be found in certiorari jurisdiction and such power can also be exercised suo motu. 35. It is a well settled principle that the High Court can exercise supervisory power under Article 227 of Constitution of India, as held by the apex Court in State (N.C.T. of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru, [2003 (2) ALD (Crl.) 109 (SC):(2003) 6 SCC 641]; that under Article 227 of Constitution of India the High Court can interfere with the directions of the Subordinate Courts. 36. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, this Court cannot exercise its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India though the order is wrong, since the power can be exercised only to keep the subordinate 7 BSB, J C.R.P.No.3111 of 2025 Courts and Tribunals within its bounds. Therefore, I am unable to exercise power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the findings recorded by the trial Court since the trial Court acted within its bounds and passed the order, which is under challenge. 37. Hence, in view of the law declared by this Court, the document cannot be rejected by exercising power under Order 13 Rule 3 of CPC for want of registration in a suit for specific performance. Therefore, the order passed by the trial Court directing the office to impound the document levying the stamp duty and penalty is in accordance with law and when such order passed by the Court to protect the revenue of the State exercising power under the fiscal enactment i.e., Stamp Act, cannot be interfered with by exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The power of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited. In Syed Yousuf Ali v. Yousuf and others, [2016 (3) ALD 235 : 2016 (2) ALT 557]; this Court held as under: "No doubt, the powers of the Court under Article 227 of the Constitution are supervisory in nature and when the trial Court did not exercise the jurisdiction which is conferred on it or where the trial Court exercised its jurisdiction excessively or admitted inadmissible evidence or when the Court exercised its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity this Court can interfere with the order under challenge. In the present facts of the case, the Court 8 BSB, J C.R.P.No.3111 of 2025 failed to exercise its jurisdiction so vested on it to decide the admissibility of the document and thereby the order of the trial Court warrants interference of this Court since it is against the settled law." (ii) In Bidyut Sarkar & Another (2 supra), it was held at paragraph No.26, as follows: “26. Despite the Trial Court's referral of the matter to the Collector, no determination regarding the deficiency in stamp duty or penalty was made by the Collector under Section 40 of the Stamp Act. As a result, the document remains inadmissible in evidence under the express bar imposed by Section 35 of the Stamp Act. Failure to resolve the deficiency in stamp duty prevents the document from being considered as admissible and valid in evidence. Therefore, until the necessary stamp duty and penalty are duly paid and endorsed by the Collector, the instrument remains legally barred from being admitted in evidence. 7. … Undoubtedly, if a person having by law authority to receive evidence and the civil court is one such person before whom any instrument chargeable with duty is produced and it is found that such instrument is not duly stamped, the same has to be impounded. The duty and penalty has to be recovered according to law. Section 35, however, prohibits its admission in evidence till such duty and penalty is paid. The Plaintiff has neither paid the duty 9 BSB, J C.R.P.No.3111 of 2025 nor penalty till today. Therefore, stricto sensu the instrument is not admissible in evidence. …” (iii) In B.V.Krishna Reddy (3 supra), it was held at paragraphs Nos.23 to 25 as follows: “23. It is also relevant here to note that Section 33 of the Act casts a statutory duty on the learned Judge of the trial Court 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. 24. In Parchuri Sireesha and another Vs. Challapalli Jalaja [MANU/AP/0221/2019 [2019 SCC OnLine AP 268]], 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 10 BSB, J C.R.P.No.3111 of 2025 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." 25. 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….” 13. Before going into further discussion, it is pertinent to mention that there is no pleading taken regarding the rectification deed, dated 14.02.1986, in the written statement. A rectification deed without registration cannot even be used for the purpose of proof of main transaction of rectification regarding the identity of the land. The collateral purpose for which it is intended to be used in evidence is not even indicated. It is settled law that only for the purpose of proof of collateral transaction which does not require registration, a document can be received in evidence as per Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, insofar as document like rectification deed is concerned. 14. Even if an unregistered document is received in evidence as per the scope of the exception allowed in proviso to Section 49 of the Act, the obligation to pay necessary stamp duty and penalty as required under Section 35 read with Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the Court receiving such insufficiently stamped document cannot disown its duty to get the document impounded. The objection to demark the 11 BSB, J C.R.P.No.3111 of 2025 document after receiving the document in evidence on the ground of want of stamp duty as per Section 36 of the Stamp Act does not absolutely bar the objection on that ground in view of the exception provided therein itself by referring to Section 61 of the Stamp Act. Such power to review is an exception to raise objection for demarking a document on the ground of deficit stamp duty and penalty and is always available. 15. The fact that the order in the revision petition in C.R.P.No.2975 of 2019 is silent on the objection regarding stamp duty and penalty renders the order not final on such objection. It is only that the objection raised during argument was recorded. Unless such objection is overruled or rejected by assigning reasons, it cannot be treated as an order giving finality on the objection by overruling or rejecting, merely because the document is allowed to be received in evidence in relation to the other objection which is the subject matter of that petition, i.e., receiving a photostat copy in evidence as secondary evidence. 16. It is pertinent to mention that D.W.1 categorically admitted availability of the original Oppudala Khararunama and therefore, it is for him to state how he got the photostat copy produced in evidence through D.W.2. For the purpose of collection of stamp duty on a document, its original is required. Merely because a photostat copy is marked as secondary evidence in Ex.B7, it cannot be used for the purpose of getting it impounded. For any reason since D.W.1 admitted possession of the original document, the same needs to be produced. Unless the original document is produced, the stamp duty and penalty thereon cannot be collected. Without collecting such amount, the document, even if marked, cannot be used for any specific collateral purpose which does not require registration. 12 BSB, J C.R.P.No.3111 of 2025 17. Under these circumstances and in the light of the above decisions, it is a fit case to allow the revision petition. 18. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. The order, dated 16.07.2025, in I.A.No.185 of 2025 in O.S.No.143 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ananthapurmu, is set aside. As a sequel, I.A.No.185 of 2025 is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ B. S. BHANUMATHI, J 11.03.2026 GRL / RAR