Kasturi Chandra Sekhar vs A. Venkataratnamma
2022 Latest Caselaw 991 AP

           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

AIR 2006 AP 28

2015 (3) ALD 277

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.