Veerati Raji Reddy v. Kancharakuntla Susheela
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY CIVIL REVIS oN PETITION NO: 1665 OF 2014 Between:
Veerati Ra.ji Reddy, D/o Malla Reddy, Occ: Agriculture, Ambala (H) of Karimnagar District.
R/o Sreeramulapally (V), ...PETITIONER AND
1. Kancharakuntla Susheela, W/o Mahinder Reddy, R/o 2-1-676, Near Old Boarding Office, Vidyaranyapuri, Hanamkonda.
2. Kancharakuntla l\rlahindar Reddy, S/o Sailu, Occ: Govt Employee, R/o 2-1-676, Near Old Boarding Office, Vidyaranyapuri, Hanamkonda. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 227 of lhe Constitution of lndia, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the docket order of the learned ll Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Warangal dated 19/03/2014, in O.S.No.112 of 2005.
LA. NO: 1OF 2014 (CRPMP. NO: 2343 0F 2014) 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 please{ to order stay of all further proceedings in o.s.No.1 12l2OO5 on the file of the ll Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Warangal dated 19/03/2014 pending disposal of the CRP. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI J. VISVESWARUDU Counsel forthe Respondents: SRI C. A. R. SESHAGIRI RAO The Court made the following: ORDER
L HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. VENKATESHIIIARA REDDY CT\IIL REVISION PETITION O. 1665 of 20L4 ORDER:
The petitioner / plaintiff has filed this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India assailing the docket order dated L9-O3-2014, in O.S.No. ll2 of 2OOS, on the file of II Addl. Senior Civit Judge, Warangal. 2.
That on 19-03-2014, the learned II Senior Civil Judge, Warangal has passed the impugned docket order in O.S.No.112 of 2005, wherein at the time of recording the evidence of DW-l a document styled.as affidavit is said to have been executed by one Mr.Virat Raj Reddy in favor of his daughter Smt.Kanchara Kuntla Susheela is sought to be exhibited. Accordingly, since the said document intends to record the earlier transaction, it was ordered for impounding with required stamp duty and penalty for using the same for collateral purposes as it is a compulsory registerable document under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act and the said direction was also compried with. The triar court has anaTyzed the facts and discussed the principles laid down by this Court in Uppula Ramesh v. Elagandula Harinath and others reported rn 2074 (1) ALD 1 and arrived at this conclusion. Thereafter, the suit was posted for marking the
document in the evidence of DW-1. At that stage, the plaintiff has carried the matter to this Court in the Civil Revision Petition alleging that Court beiow has erred in not considering the principles laid in Uppula Ramesh's case referred to above and misread the contents of the documents and that the Court below ought to have seen that the contents of the document only show that it is an affidavit instead it has been mentioned as gift deed, which is not correct in law. 3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner called absent. No representation. Heard learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record.
4.
The Original Suit is filed by plaintiffs for declaration of title and recovery of possession. After the written statement of defendants I and 2 is filed issues were settled, evidence on behalf of plaintiffs was closed. When he evidencti of defendants was in progress, DW-l has filed his evidence affidavit in lieu of chief examination. At this stage, for exhibiting the document dated 28-02-1989 which is styled as affidavit, the other side has taken objection. The Court below after studied examination of entire contents of the document recorded its finding to the effect that, though the document is styled as an affidavit the contents pnma facie shows that it is a gift deed, which is prepared on insufficient stamp paper and
L as directed the defendant has paid the deficit stamp duty and penalty on 26-07-2013. The trial Court held that the said document can be marked, subject to the objection of the plaintiff, which can be answered after culmination of the trial in the judgment.
5.
Considering the nature and stage of the suit, as the said document is filed by the defendants along with the written statement and that the plaintiff is not taken by surprise, the trial Court has rightly analyzed the contents of the said document, treated it as un-registered gift deed, which is a compulsorily registered document directed the defendants for payment of requisite stamp duty and'penalty for receiving the said document in evidence only for collateral purposes. It is made clear that mere exhibiting the document itself is not a sufficient proof of the contents of the same and it is for the petitioner / plaintiff to prove the contents ol the same, in accordance with law, and that said document shall be received only for collateral purposes and not for any other purpo se.
6.
In that view of the matter, I do not find anv jurisdictional error committed by the Court below and the docket order dated lg-O3-2O14 does not warrant any interference by this Court.
7.
In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the order impugned dated 79-O3-2O14 in O.S.No.1l2 of 2005. Considering the fact that the Original Suit is filed in the year 2005 and the proceedings in the suit were stayed by this Court on 24-06-2014, the Court below is directed to expedite the disposal of the matter and shall dispose of the Original Suit, within six (6) months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Both the parties to the suit shall cooperate for expeditious disposal of the suit as directed. There shall be no order as to costs Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
SD/.K.ONESIM ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Q),t ,TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, The ll Additional Senior Civil Judge at Warangal One CC to Sri J. Visveswarudu, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri C. A. R. Seshagiri Rao, Advocate [OPUCI Two CD Copies One Spare Copy kk gbr
HIGH COURT DATED: 0410112022 J'J ( 1 r{E s lA 17 Fvi 2V2
ORDER
CRP.No.1665 of 2014 DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION n *4 d]/* 8t