1. Mr. S. Maneesh Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vishal Kumar Jain, learned counsel for respondent No.1. As per cause title, respondent Nos.2 to 9 are not necessary parties.

2. This revision is filed assailing the order dated 03.02.2026 in I.A. No.71 of 2025 in O.S. No.10 of 2025 passed by learned I Additional District Judge, Medchal - Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda.

3. Respondent No.1 herein - plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S. No.10 of 2025 against the petitioner herein - defendant No.1 and respondent Nos.2 to 9 - defendant Nos.2 to 9 for partition and separate possession of suit schedule properties.

4. Along with the said suit, she has also filed an Interlocutory Application vide I.A. No.71 of 2025, to restrain the defendants from alienating, encumbering and changing physical features of the suit schedule properties. The petitioner herein being defendant No.1 filed counter in the said I.A.

5. During the course of hearing of the said I.A., the petitioner herein sought to mark an unregistered partition deed, dated 18.02.1984, contending that he is intending to mark the same only for collateral purpose.

6. Respondent No.1 herein - plaintiff objected for marking of the same, contending that it is an unregistered document and the petitioner wanted to prove the factum of earlier partition.

7. Vide impugned order dated 03.02.2026, the trial Court held that the petitioner herein is intending to mark the said document to prove the factum of earlier partition and that said unregistered document cannot be received in evidence and, therefore, it is inadmissible.

8. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed the present revision.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner is intending to mark the said document for collateral purpose and, therefore, there is no need of registration. The trial Court erred in rejecting the request of the petitioner to mark the said document in I.A. No.71 of 2025. He also placed reliance on the decisions in P. Anjanappa (D) by L.Rs. v. A.P. Nanjundappa((2026) 4 SCC 492) and K. Anjaneya Setty v. K.H. Rangiah Setty(ILR 2002 KAR 3613).

10. Whereas, learned counsel for respondent No.1 - plaintiff would submit that the petitioner herein filed the said un-registered partition deed to prove the factum of earlier partition and, therefore, it is not for collateral purpose. It is unregistered partition deed. Even at the interlocutory stage, it is inadmissible. On consideration of the said aspects only, the trial Court declined to mark the said document in I.A. No.71 of 2025.

11. In the light of the aforesaid rival submissions, it is apt to note that the facts are not in dispute. The said suit filed by respondent No.1 herein against the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 9 herein is for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. She has also filed I.A. No.71 of 2025 under Order - XXXIX, Rules - 1 and 2 of CPC, to restrain the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 9 herein from alienating, encumbering and changing the physical features of suit schedule properties. The trial Court granted ex parte injunction and the said I.A. is pending. The petitioner herein had filed counter in the said I.A. and also unregistered partition deed dated 18.02.1984. During the course of hearing of the said I.A., the petitioner herein sought to mark the said document.

12. It is apt to note that Rule - 60 of the Civil Rules of Practice deals with ‘proof of facts by affidavit’, and it says that any fact required to be proved upon an interlocutory proceeding shall unless otherwise provided by these rules, or ordered by the Court, be provided by affidavit but the Judge may, in any case, direct evidence to be given orally, and thereupon the evidence shall be recorded, and exhibits marked, in the same manner as in a suit and lists of the witnesses and exhibits shall be prepared and annexed to the judgment.

13. This Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court time and again categorically held that the trial Court has to mark documents with the consent of parties while deciding Interlocutory Applications. While marking the said documents, it is for the parties to give consent or object for marking of the same raising legal objections.

14. In Yartala Yadgiri Reddy v. Pinhiti Ramulamma(CRP No.641 of 2019, decided on 10.04.2019), wherein the petitioner sought to mark the past partition deed for collateral purpose, on examination of facts of the said case, this Court held that if the document is insufficiently stamped, there is no question of receiving the said document for collateral purpose either, because under Section - 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, it cannot be received in evidence for any purpose.

15. In Chinnappareddigari Peda Mutyala Reddy v. Chinnappareddigari Venkata Reddy(AIR 1969 AP 242), the larger Bench of the combined High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that whole process of partition contemplates three pharases i.e., severancy of status, division of joint property by metes and bounds and nature of possession of various shares. In a suit for partition, an unregistered document can be relied upon for collateral purpose i.e., severancy of title, nature of possession of various shares but not for the primary purpose i.e., division of joint properties by metes and bounds. An unstamped instrument is not admissible in evidence even for collateral purpose, until the same is impounded. The said principle was also reiterated by the Apex Court in Yellapu Uma Maheswari v. Buddha Jagadeeswara Rao((2015) 16 SCC 787).

16. In Smt. Burra Anitha v. Elagari Mallavva(2010 SCC OnLine AP 518), the combined High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that Rule - 60 of the Civil Rules of Practice provides for marking of the documents in interlocutory proceedings in the same manner as in a suit.

17. Section - 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 deals with ‘documents of which registration is compulsory’ and Section – 49 deals with ‘effect of non-registration of documents required to be registered’. The same are relevant and are extracted hereunder:

               “17. Documents of which registration is compulsory.—(1) The following documents shall be registered, if the property to which they relate is situate in a district in which, and if they have been executed on or after the date on which, Act No. XVI of 1864, or the Indian Registration Act, 1866, or the Indian Registration Act, 1871, or the Indian Registration Act, 1877, or this Act came or comes into force, namely:—

               (a) instruments of gift of immovable property;

               (b) other non-testamentary instruments which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property;

               (c) non-testamentary instruments which acknowledge the receipt or payment of any consideration on account of the creation, declaration, assignment, limitation or extinction of any such right, title or interest; and

               (d) leases of immovable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent;

               (e) non-testamentary instruments transferring or assigning any decree or order of a Court or any award when such decree or order or award purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property:

               Provided that the State Government may, by order published in the Official Gazette, exempt from the operation of this sub-section any lease executed in any district, or part of a district, the terms granted by which do not exceed five years and the annual rents reserved by which do not exceed fifty rupees.

               (1A) The documents containing contracts to transfer for consideration, any immovable property for the purpose of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882) shall be registered if they have been executed on or after the commencement of the Registration and Other Related laws (Amendment) Act, 2001 (48 of 2001) and if such documents are not registered on or after such commencement, then, they shall have no effect for the purposes of the said section 53A.

               (2) Nothing in clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) applies to—

               (i) any composition deed; or

               (ii) any instrument relating to shares in a joint stock Company, notwithstanding that the assets of such Company consist in whole or in part of immovable property; or

               (iii) any debenture issued by any such Company and not creating, declaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing any right, title or interest, to or in immovable property except in so far as it entitles the holder to the security afforded by a registered instrument whereby the Company has mortgaged, conveyed or otherwise transferred the whole or part of its immovable property or any interest therein to trustees upon trust for the benefit of the holders of such debentures; or

               (iv) any endorsement upon or transfer of any debenture issued by any such Company; or

               (v) any document other than the documents specified in sub-section (1A) not itself creating, declaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing any right, title or interest of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards to or in immovable property, but merely creating a right to obtain another document which will, when executed, create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any such right, title or interest; or

               (vi) any decree or order of a Court except a decree or order expressed to be made on a compromise and comprising immovable property other than that which is the subject-matter of the suit or proceeding; or

               (vii) any grant of immovable property by Government; or

               (viii) any instrument of partition made by a Revenue-Officer; or

               (ix) any order granting a loan or instrument of collateral security granted under the Land Improvement Act, 1871, or the Land Improvement Loans Act, 1883; or

               (x) any order granting a loan under the Agriculturists, Loans Act, 1884, or instrument for securing the repayment of a loan made under that Act; or (xa) any order made under the Charitable Endowments Act, 1890 (6 of 1890), vesting any property in a Treasurer of Charitable Endowments or divesting any such Treasurer of any property; or

               (xi) any endorsement on a mortgage-deed acknowledging the payment of the whole or any part of the mortgage-money, and any other receipt for payment of money due under a mortgage when the receipt does not purport to extinguish the mortgage; or

               (xii) any certificate of sale granted to the purchaser of any property sold by public auction by a Civil or Revenue-Officer.

               (3) Authorities to adopt a son, executed after the 1st day of January, 1872, and not conferred by a will, shall also be registered.”

               “49. Effect of non-registration of documents required to be registered.—No document required by section 17 or by any provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), to be registered shall—

               (a) affect any immovable property comprised therein, or

               (b) confer any power to adopt, or

               (c) be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power, unless it has been registered:

               Provided that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by this Act or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 (3 of 1877), or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument.”

Thus, un-registered partition deed is admissible in evidence for collateral purpose i.e., to establish severance of status and nature of possession. The said principle was also held by the combined High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Amangenti Prameela v. P. Venkat Reddy (died) by L.Rs.(2004 (3) ALD 66)

18. In the light of the aforesaid principle, coming to the facts of the present case, as discussed supra, respondent No.1 had filed the aforesaid suit O.S. No.10 of 2025 against the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 9 herein for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. The petitioner herein and respondent No.2 filed counter in I.A. No.71 of 2025 in O.S. No.10 of 2025, contending that after the marriage of the plaintiff, partition was done in respect of all Schedule ‘A’ properties and Schedule ‘B’ properties acquired from their father, late Nagireddy Sathi Reddy, in between him and the plaintiff and late N. Mahender Reddy, late N. Ravinder Reddy and their mother late Subadhramma. The said partition was also reduced in writing on 18.02.1984 in the presence of the witnesses and the same was notarized. The said partition deed was executed by the plaintiff, himself and his two brothers and mother with free will and consent after understanding the contents of the document. In the said partition, the plaintiff and her mother together took the share of land in Survey Nos.180 to 192 of Cheeryal Village totally admeasuring Acs.10.14 guntas which are shown in item Nos.8 to 19 of Schedule ‘A’ property. The rest of properties in Schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ were allotted to him and his brothers, late N. Mahender Reddy and late N. Ravinder Reddy separately in the said partition. The said partition was acted upon between all the parties and the plaintiff and her mother themselves in order to convey/sell the property allotted towards their share to third parties, they have obtained Layout from the concerned Gram Panchayat, Cheeryal dated 05.02.1987 and to convey the said property to prospective purchasers, they have executed a registered General Power of Attorneys in his favour dated 24.04.1984 and 17.02.1988. As a General Power of Attorney Holder representing the plaintiff and late Subhadramma, he has executed the registered sale deeds in favour of the prospective purchasers in respect of all the plots and the said sale of plots were completed about two decades back itself. The plaintiff and late Subhadramma together received sale consideration of the said plots and the purchasers of the said plot also made several transactions, some of them have constructed houses and residential colony came up.

19. Thus, according to the petitioner, the suit schedule property was partitioned earlier by metes and bounds, the same was developed dividing it into plots, sold them to prospective purchasers and the said purchasers are in possession of the same.

20. It is apt to note that proceedings in interlocutory application are summary in nature. Documents may be marked for the limited purpose of deciding interim relief. Such, marking does not amount to proof. Such marking does not dispense with proof during trial. Documents must ordinarily be re-marked and proved during trial unless admitted. Findings recorded while deciding an interlocutory application, are only prima facie and do not bind the trial Court on merits.

21. As held by the larger Bench of the combined High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Chinnappareddigari Peda Mutyala Reddy4, the whole process of partition contemplates three phases i.e., severancy of status, division of joint property by metes and bounds and nature of possession of various shares. Collateral purpose includes severancy of status and nature of possession of various shares, but not for the primary purpose i.e., division of joint properties by metes and bounds.

22. In P. Anjanappa1 relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, an unregistered partition deed (palupatti) sought to mark for the purpose of collateral purpose, proving severance of the joint family status and title, explaining the nature of possession, recording the arrangement made thereunder and evidencing the parties’ subsequent conduct. But, whereas in the case on hand, the petitioner sought to mark the unregistered partition deed to prove that the suit schedule properties were partitioned earlier by metes and bounds. Therefore, the facts of the said case are slightly different to the facts of the present case and, thus, this decision would not help to him.

23. In K. Anjaneya Setty2 relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, the Karnataka High Court considered the fact that proviso of Section - 49 of the Registration Act provides for receiving such documents in the circumstances narrated in the said section. Therefore, there is no total prohibition for receiving unregistered documents in evidence. An unregistered partition deed could be received in evidence to prove any collateral transaction. As discussed above, the facts of the present case are different to the facts of the said case. Therefore, this decision would not render any assistance to the learned counsel for the petitioner.

24. As discussed above, in the present case, according to the petitioner, the suit schedule properties were earlier partitioned under the unregistered partition deed dated 18.02.1984 by metes and bounds. Therefore, the petitioner herein cannot contend that he has filed the aforesaid unregistered document dated 18.02.1984 only for collateral purpose and, thus, it can be marked at interlocutory stage i.e., I.A. No.71 of 2025 in O.S. No.10 of 2025. He cannot contend that for marking of the said document at interlocutory application, there is no need of registration of the same. On consideration of the said aspects only, the learned trial Court rejected the request made by the petitioner to mark the said unregistered partition deed. Therefore, the impugned order is a reasoned order and well-founded. The petitioner failed to make out any ground to interfere with the order by this Court invoking its supervisory jurisdiction under Article - 227 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the present revision fails and the same is liable to be dismissed.

25. The present Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the revision shall stand closed.