ORDER
1. Heard Sri N.V. Anantha Krishna, the learned Counsel representing the revision petitioners and Sri Ch. Dhananjaya, the learned Counsel representing the first respondent.
2. This Court while admitting the Civil Revision Petition on 28.05.2008, granted interim stay as prayed for in C.R.P.M.P. No. 2810 of 2008. The first respondent in the Civil Revision Petition filed C.R.P.M.P. No. 4733 of 2008 to vacate the interim stay granted in C.R.P.M.P. No. 2810 of 2008 dated 28.05.2008 aforesaid. When the vacate stay application is taken up for hearing the learned Counsel on record made a request for disposal of the Civil Revision Petition itself and hence, this Court had taken up the Civil Revision Petition for final hearing and the same is being disposed of.
3. The Civil Revision Petition is filed against an order, dated 03.05.2008 made in O.S. No. 158 of 2005 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram. At the time of marking document, dated 01.10.1980, an objection was taken on the ground that since it is a lease deed, it requires registration and hence, the same cannot be marked.
4. The learned Judge after recording certain reasons, came to the conclusion that the document be received in evidence and be marked on behalf of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition had been preferred.
5. Sri Anantha Krishna, the learned Counsel representing the revision petitioners would maintain that the learned Judge totally erred in permitting the marking of the document in question, instead of rejecting the same, since it is a compulsorily registerable document under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act (for short 'the Act'). The learned Counsel also had taken this Court through Section 17 of the Act and also Section 49 of the Act as well and further pointed to the contents of the document and would maintain that in the light of the recitals of the document in controversy, inasmuch as the first respondent-plaintiff intends to rely on the said document for the purpose of establishing the factum of landlord and tenant relationship this being the principle question or controversy in the suit, it cannot be said that such document can be marked for collateral purpose. When that being so the order impugned in the civil revision petition being unsustainable, the same is liable to be set aside. The learned Counsel also relied on the decision of this Court reported in Kalyanapu Venkatalaxmi v. Kalyanapu Ramudu : 2007(3)ALD18 .
6. On the contrary, Sri Ch. Dananyaja, the learned Counsel representing the first respondent-vacate petitioner/plaintiff would maintain that the plaintiff filed the suit O.S. No. 158 of 2005 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram, against the defendants for eviction and also for damages for use and occupation and in the course of evidence, first respondent-plaintiff sought to mark a document and the revision petitioners raised an objection that the said document requires registration under Section 17 of the Act and since it is an unregistered document, it cannot be admitted in evidence to prove the factum of the relationship of landlord and the tenant. The learned Counsel also would maintain that in the light of the recitals specified in the document in question, this may not fall under the lease deed but at the best it can be said to be an agreement between the parties and hence, came to the conclusion that the same can be marked. The learned Counsel pointed out to the relevant portions of the order under challenge, and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the civil revision petition is to be dismissed.
7. Heard the learned Counsel.
8. The civil revision petition is filed by the revision petitioners/defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 158 of 2005 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram against the order, dated 03.05.2008, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
9. No doubt, strong reliance was placed in Kalyanapu Venkatalaxmi v. Kalyanapu Ramudu (supra), wherein this Court observed at paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 as under:
The Apex Court in Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat and Anr. 2001 (1) ALD (Crl.) 548 (SC) : 2001 (3) SCC 1, at Paras 14, 15 and 16 observed:- 'When so recast, the practice which can be a better substitute is this: Whenever an objection is raised during evidence-taking stage regarding the admissibility of any material or item or oral evidence the trial Court can make a note of such objection and mark the objected document tentatively as an exhibit in the case (or record the objected part of the oral evidence) subject to such objection to be decided at the last stage in the final judgment. If the Court finds at the final stage that the objection so raised is sustainable the Judge or Magistrate can keep such evidence excluded from consideration. In our view there is no illegality in adopting such a course. (However, we make it clear that if the objection relates to deficiency of stamp duty of a document the Court has to decide the objection before proceeding further. For all other objections procedure suggested above can be followed.) The above procedure, if followed, will have two advantages. First is that the time in the trial Court, during evidence-taking stage, would not be wasted on account of raising such objections and the Court can continue to examine the witnesses. The witnesses need not wait for long hours, if not days. Second is that the superior Court, when the same objection is recanvassed and reconsidered in appeal or revision against the final judgment of the trial Court, can determine the correctness of the view taken by the trial Court regarding that objection, without bothering to remit the case to the trial Court again for fresh disposal. We may also point out that this measure would not cause any prejudice to the parties to the litigation and would not add to their misery or expenses. We, therefore, make the above as a procedure to be followed by the trial Courts whenever an objection is raised regarding the admissibility of any material or any item of oral evidence.' In Meda Anjamma and Anr. v. Vikram China Veeraiah : 2006(2)ALD710 , the learned Judge of this Court while dealing with a similar question relying upon Bipin Shantilal Panchal's case (supra), observed at paras 5, 6, 8 and 9 as hereunder:
Section 3 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (Stamp Act, for brevity) is a charging section and requires the instruments enumerated therein chargeable with duty of the amount indicated in the schedule as proper duty thereof. Section 35 of the Stamp Act mandates that an instrument chargeable with duty cannot be admitted in evidence by any person having authority to receive evidence if such instrument is not properly/duly stamped. Section 36 of the Stamp Act further postulates that when an instrument is admitted in evidence, such admission shall not be called in question at any stage of the suit or proceeding on the ground that the instrument has not been duly stamped. In the case of an instruments, which is not sufficiently stamped, the law provides for procedure to validate such insufficiently stamped documents by collecting the deficient stamp duty as well as penalty. Therefore, when an objection is raised regarding the admissibility of a document in evidence for want of proper stamp duty, the Court or public authority having power to receive evidence has to decide the question of stamp duty at the stage of receiving the document because when once the document is received, the same cannot be challenged at later stage in a suit or proceeding. The same is not however the case with regard to the registerable unregistered documents. Section 17 of Registration Act mandates and enumerates certain documents, which shall have to be registered necessarily. Section 49 of the Registration Act contains the consequences of non-Registration of the document and it is to the effect inter alia that on document required by Section 17 to be registered shall affect any immovable property comprised thereon and can be received as evidence unless it has been registered. The exception, however, is in the case of the document affecting immovable property, which can be received as evidence of contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter II of Specific Relief Act, 1877 or as evidence of collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument. Except these two provisions, there is no provision in the Registration act, adverting to the question of admissibility of an unregistered document. If an unregistered document is received as evidence, the parties to the suit or proceeding can always urge at the time of final hearing regarding the admissibility of the document for reasons more than one including the ground that being unregistered it is inadmissible as evidence. But, in the case of improperly stamped or unstamped document being offered as evidence in a suit, the Court has to necessarily decide as and when objection is raised because when once unstamped document is admitted in evidence, at a later stage, the question of inadmissibility cannot be raised. It is n doubt true that conventionally the Courts in common law jurisdictions decided questions of admissibility of documents at the stage of trial, whether objection is regarding proper stamp duty or Registration. This procedure would certainly results in delaying the trial and therefore the Supreme Court directed to substitute this practice by better one to help acceleration of trial proceedings. Before proceeding further with the case it is also necessary to point out that when the nature of document is to be analyzed either with reference to Stamp Duty or Registration, the Court has to look to the recitals of the document and any reference or reliance on the pleadings in the case would amount to gave error on the face of record (See V.L. Narasimha Rao v. K.T. Pentaiah : 2002(3)ALD321 and Chintan Kantam v. Dulipudi Venkateswara Rao : 2004(1)ALD380 . In this case, there is no denial before this Court that the trial Court has referred to the pleadings on record for deciding the nature of the document and this itself is a ground warranting interference under Article 227 of Constitution of India. As noticed supra, the trial Court decided on the question of stamp duty and also the question of Registration. As per the decision of the Supreme Court in Bipin Shantilal v. State of Gujarat (supra), the objection by the defendants 4 to 10 need not detain at this stage. The document sought to be marked any the petitioners as Ex.A.1 can be received in evidence recording the objections, and the lower Court can decide the matter as to the evidentiary value and/or admissibility at the time of hearing. Insofar as the question of stamp duty is concerned, the document sought to be marked is dated 4-4-1979 and at the relevant time, the stamp duty for an agreement of sale being Rs. 5/-. Hence, the trial Court cannot refuse to receive the same in evidence. Therefore, the finding of the trial Court that it is improperly stamped cannot be accepted, but the question whether it amounts to sale deed or sale agreement has to await the trial in the suit.CERTAIN submissions were made by the Counsel on record relating to the nature of the document in question-the counsel for the revision petitioners contending that it is an arbitration award requiring Compulsory Registration and on the contrary the Counsel for respondent taking a stand that it is just a family settlement.
THIS Court is not inclined to express any opinion relating to this aspect at this stage. It is not as though an objection in coming up for the first time. It appears that at the stage of impounding of the document in question when the same was not done in time, the matter was carried by way of CRP No. 6059/2005 and this Court made an order which had been already referred to supra. However, it is not clear from the record whether the objection relating to want of Registration had been specifically raised and decided. Be that as it may, in the light of the facts referred to supra, since the respondent was left with no other option, these applications were moved for reopening of the suit and recall D.W.1 and D.W.2 for the purpose of marking the document. Again, an objection is being taken that it is an arbitration award which requires Compulsory Registration. In the light of the peculiar facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that this objection may have to be decided by the learned Judge at the appropriate stage at the time of final disposal of the suit, especially in the light of the fact that the impounding of the document had been completed and the document came back to the Court and at that juncture, these applications were moved. It is needless to say that the nature of the document and other questions which are being argued in elaboration by the parties are left open to be decided at the time of final disposal of the suit.
10. The suit is for eviction based on the document in question, dated 01.10.1980. On a careful reading of the document in question, a recital had been incorporated to the effect that the lessor and lessee hereby agree to get lease deed with the above terms and conditions executed and registered when demanded by either of the parties. In the light of the same, the learned Judge was of the opinion that the document would fall under the agreement in furtherance of which a further lease deed to be executed and in the light of the same, such document can be received in evidence and be marked on behalf of the plaintiff.
11. In the light of the recitals of the document in question and the reasons recorded by the learned Judge, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality whatsoever.
12. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs.