Gandikota Gopaiah v. Gamdikota Sarojana

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1632 OF 2021 Petition under Article 227 ol the Constitution of India, againsUaggrieved by the Order dated 06-08-2021 passed in l.A. No.54 of 2021 in 0.S.No. 508 of 2009 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal. Between:

'1. Gandikota Gopaiah, (died)

2. Gandikota Thirupathi, S/o. Late Gopaiah, Aged 49 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. H.No.25-7-17411, Kazipel, Warangal City and District.

3. Gandikota Ramulamma, Wo. Late Gopaiah, Aged 63 years, Occ. Household, R/o. H.No.25-7-17411, Kazipe| Warangal City and District.

...Petitioners/Defendants/Petitioners

AND Gandikota Sarojana, Wo. Ravi, Age 32 years, Occ. Household, R/o. H.No.25-5- '165, Vishnupuri, l(azipet of Warangal City and District. ...RespondenUPleintiff/Respondent 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 stay all further proceedings in OS No. 508/2009 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal.

lA NO: 2 OF 2022 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 pass an order vacating interim stay granted on 29-10-2021 in C.R.P. No.163212021 on the file of this Honorable Court. Between:

Gandikota Sarojana, Wo. Ravi, Age 32 years, Occ. Household, R/o. H.No.25-5165, Vishnupuri, Kazipet of Warangal City and District.

...Petitioner/RespondenURespondent

AND '1. Gandikota Gopaiah, (died)

2. Gandikota Thirupathi, S/o. Late Gopaiah, Aged 49 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. H.No.25-7-17411, Kazipet, Warangal City and District. 3.' Gandikota Ramulamma, Wo. Late Gopaiah, Aged 63 years, Occ. Household, R/o. H.No.25-7-17411, Kazipet, Warangal City and District. ...Respon denUPetitioners Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRl. J. VENKATESWARA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: SRl. S. GANESH RAO The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASTVA RAO ItAIDU CTVIL REVISION PETITION.No.1632 OF 2O2l ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners who are defendants in O.S.No.SOS of 2009 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal. The revision is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the order of the trial Court in I.A.No.54 of 2O2l dated 06.08.2021 bv which the request of the petitioners to recall DWl for the purpose of marking an unregistered gift deed was negatived. The present revision is filed on the ground that the Court below failed to see that the document dated 05.01.1973 though an unregistered settlement deed, it was already impounded by R.D.O., Warangal. Therefore, it can be received as evidence for adjudication of the suit. The trial Court failed to assign any reasons while dismissing the interlocutory application filed by the petitioners/ defendant. They have also claimed that the above referred document can be marked as evidence for collateral purpose and that the trial Court failed to see that in view of the order, the Court ought to have allowed them

CRP No.16.32 ol2o2 t to mark the document to protect valuable rights "of the petitioners.

2.

As per copy of the order in I.A.No.54 of 2021, it seems that the petitioners/ defendants filed the above referred application under Order XVIII Rule 17 rlw Section 15i of C.P.C., with a prayer to reca-ll DWl to mark unregistered gift settlement deed. As per the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the petitioner have claimed that one Pingili Raladheer Reddy executed an unregistered gift settlement deed in favour of the father of 1"t petitioner confirming the rights and possession over an extent of 12 gts in Sy.No.48. The said document was impounded by R.D.O., Warangal after collecting sufficient stamp duty and penality. The 1"t petitioner and his father have constructed house in the property covered by the above referred unregistered gift settlemerrt deed. Therefore, they wanted to mark the documents and for that purpose they filed petition to recall DW1. The application was disputed by the respondent/ plaintiff 3.

The Court below having heard both parties, came to I I the conclusion that the gift cleed through which immovable ,/ property was gifted requires compulsory registration. Even I

CRP No-1632 oJ 2O21 if it is impounded the defect cannot be cured and in the absence of such registration, the document cannot be received in evidence. Thereby, dismissed the petition. 4.

Heard both parties.

5.

Now the point for consideration is:

Whether th-e request of th.e petitioners/ defendants to recall DW7 for making an unregistered gifi settlement deed can be accepted ?

6.

POINT Even as per the affidavit filed in support of the petition and as per the a-rguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is very clear that they wanted to mark an unregistered gift settlement deed. It may be true that it was impounded by R.D.O., Warangal vide proceedings dated 10.02.2007.

7.

According to the averments made in the affidavit, an extent of 12 gts., in Sy.No.48 was gifted by one Pingili I Ranadheer Reddy in favour of the father of 1st petitioner. According to Section 17(a) of Registration Act such a gift settlement deed requires compulsory registration. Admittedly the document was not registered as required

CRP No.1632 of 2A2l under Section 17(a) ol the Registration Act. Ii view of Section 49 of Registration Act, such an unregistered document since it is in respect of immovable property, cannot be admitted in evidence, in spite of the fact that it was impounded by the proceedings of the R.D.O., Waranagal. it cannot cure the main defect of registration as required under Section 17 of Registration Act. The Court below having placed reliance on judgment between Bhauanam Ademma ,Ls State of Andhra Pradeshl, dismissed the request. Therefore, there are no merits in the revision ald the impugned order cannot be set aside in exercising the powers ol this Court under Article 227 of Con stitution of India.

B.

In the result, the revision is dismissed with costs. 9.

As a sequel, pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, shall stand closed.

^-rrr'o\ Arr l ( CFF) Sd/- N. CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,I'RUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal Senior Civil Judge, \4tarangal.

2. One CC tc.r SRI. J. VENKATESWARA REDDY, Advocate IOPUCI

3. One CC to SRl. S. GANESH RAO, Advocate [OPUC]

4. Two CD Copies PSR

I HIGH COURT SSRN,J DATED:05112t2022

ORDER

CRP.No.1632 ot 2021 o 1HE ST4ig ori ') 3tl,lAll 2[ZI z ,/, i) --:.:i_ DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION WITH COSTS.