R.Govinda Reddy vs R.Kodanda Reddy
2024 Latest Caselaw 556 AP

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 556 AP
Judgement Date : 12 January, 2024

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

R.Govinda Reddy vs R.Kodanda Reddy on 12 January, 2024

Author: R. Raghunandan Rao

Bench: R. Raghunandan Rao

                  HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

                   CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1571 of 2023

ORDER:

The respondent herein had filed a suit for specific

performance of contract, for sale of the suit schedule property,

by way of O.S.No.105 of 2010, in the Court of II additional

Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor against the petitioner herein. In the

course of the trial, the respondent marked Ex.A3 by referring to

it as an agreement of sale. At that stage, the marking of the said

document was objected by the petitioner. Thereupon, the

respondent moved I.A.No.720 of 2022 for deciding the

admissibility of Ex.A3 as a preliminary point. The trial Court

after considering the contents of the document and various

judgments including the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in K.B. Saha and sons Private Limited vs.

Development Consultant Limited.,1 had held that the

document is only an agreement of sale and was admissible in

evidence as necessary stamp duty has also been paid by treating

the document as a deed of sale on account of the fact that

decision is said to have been transferred under the document.

2008(6) ALD page 92

2. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has

moved the present Civil Revision Petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken this

Court through the document in question. The contents of the

said document show that the document while being titled a

Kararnama of the sale, contains stipulations and conditions that

the transfer of the suit schedule property is complete and that

the transferee is entitled to utilise the land in any manner

deems it fit including the right to alienate and sell the property.

In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that this

document may amount to a deed of sale.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent has now

produced a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in

Ameer Minhaj vs. Dierdre Elizabeth (Wright) Issar 2. The

Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering a similar document

had held in paragraph No.11 in the following terms:

"In the reported decision, this Court has adverted to the principles delineated in K.B. Saha and Sons Private Limited v. Development Consultant Limited, (2008) 8 SCC 564 and has added one more principle thereto that a document is required to be registered, but if unregistered, can still be admitted as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance. In view of this exposition, the conclusion recorded by the High Court in the impugned judgment that the sale agreement dated 9th July, 2003 is inadmissible in evidence, will have to be understood to

(2018) 7 SCC Page 639

mean that the document though exhibited, will bear an endorsement that it is admissible only as evidence of the agreement to sell under the proviso to Section 49 of the 1908 Act and shall not have any effect for the purposes of Section 53A of the 1882 Act. IN that, it is received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance and nothing more. The genuineness, validity and binding nature of the document or the fact that it is hit by the provisions of the 1882 Act or the 1899 Act, as the case may be, will have to be adjudicated at the appropriate stage as noted by the Trial Court after the parties adduce oral and documentary evidence."

5. In view of the said observations, the order of the trial

Court is set aside to the extent of determining the admissibility of

the document. However, the trial Court, in terms of the judgment

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court shall consider the admissibility of

the document at the appropriate stage. Needless to say, the trial

Court shall take an appropriate decision without being influenced

by any of the observations made in the present order and strictly

in terms of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

aforesaid case.

6. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand