HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
C.R.P.No.186 of 2020
ORDER:
The petitioner filed O.S.No.28 of 2014 against the respondents herein before the II Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni, for recovery of money.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had entered into an agreement with the respondents on 26.10.2010 for purchase of certain moveable properties and a site and building pertaining to a school. The petitioner contends that after entering into this agreement and having advanced substantial amounts of money, he came to know that the property, which is sought to be sold to him, was situated in Government land and as such there would be no sale. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the suit for recovery of money advanced by him under the agreement of sale.
3. When the petitioner, in the course of trial, sought to mark the said agreement of sale dated 26.10.2010, the respondents objected to it on the ground that the particulars of movable properties and vehicles are not mentioned in the agreement, as the same stands in the name of the 3rd respondent and respondents 1 and 2 entered into an agreement with the petitioner for the site and the building and that the amount shown in the agreement includes movable and immovable properties and the said unregistered, improperly stamped agreement cannot be marked as immoveable property is involved.
4. The petitioner took the plea that the agreement of sale is being marked for a collateral purpose and as such the agreement would be admissible in evidence.
2 RRR,J
C.R.P.No.186 of 2020
5. The trial Court after due consideration of the contentions raised by both sides, by a docket order dated 07.01.2020 had upheld the objection raised by the respondents and did not permit the said agreement of sale to be marked as an exhibit. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present revision petition.
6. Sri Virupaksha Dattatreya Gouda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that even though Section 49 of the Registration Act prohibited the marking of an unregistered agreement of sale involving immoveable property, the proviso to Section 49 permits marking of document for collateral purpose even if the said document requires registration. He also submits that the suit was for recovery of money and the agreement of sale has to be marked for the collateral purpose of showing that, there was a transaction of sale that was proposed between the parties, on account of which money had been advanced to the respondents. He submits that this would amount to a collateral purpose and relies upon the judgments of this Court in Dr. Rayadurgam vs. Gurappa and another1, V.S. Ravinder Raj and others vs Siddala Narasimha and others2, P. Veerraju, S/o Late Satyanarayana Murthy and another vs. Lakkaraju Indira Bai, W/o Narahari Rao and seven others3, and an unreported judgment of this Court dated 14.12.2018 in C.R.P.No.5851 of 2015.
7. Sri Butta Vijaya Bhaskar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the entire claim in the suit is based on the agreement of sale and marking of the agreement of sale would definitely 1 AIR 2006 AP 28 2 2015 (3) ALD 277 3 2015 (1) ALD 472 3 RRR,J C.R.P.No.186 of 2020 not fall within the ambit of "collateral purpose" and as such the trial court is justified in refusing to mark the agreement of sale as an exhibit.
8. In all the judgements, cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the facts are similar. In all these cases, agreement holders, who had advanced money under agreements of sale, had filed suits for recovery of money on the ground that the agreements of sale were not enforceable, for various reasons, and that the agreement holders are entitled for refund of money. In all these cases, objections had been raised when the agreement holders sought to mark the agreements of sale, which were all unregistered. In all these cases, a consistent view has been taken by the Court that such unregistered agreements of sale can be marked as exhibits for the purpose of demonstrating that there was an agreement of sale, under which money had been advanced. In all these cases, this Court had taken the view that marking of such agreements of sale for such purpose would amount to marking of documents for collateral purpose, as provided under proviso to Section 49(1) of the Registration Act, 1908. I am in respectful agreement with the views expressed by the learned judges of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
9. In the circumstances, the order of the trial Court dated 07.01.2020 requires to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. Consequently it shall be open to the petitioner to mark the said document as an exhibit. This marking of document shall only be for a collateral purpose of demonstrating that there was an agreement of sale in which money had been advanced to the respondent herein.
4 RRR,J
C.R.P.No.186 of 2020
10. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
23rd February, 2022 Js.
5 RRR,J
C.R.P.No.186 of 2020
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
C.R.P.No.186 of 2020
23rd February, 2021
Js.