Vangala Ravinder Reddy vs U. Venkatamma
2021 Latest Caselaw 2584 Tel

        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD

                         C.R.P.No.765 of 2021
ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated

29.01.2021 in I.A.No.789 of 2019 in O.S.No.301 of 2012 on the file

of the Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda (for short, "trial Court").

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners/plaintiffs

filed a suit for perpetual injunction. In the said suit, the

respondents/defendants filed an agreement of sale alleged to have

been executed by one Gunreddy Malla Reddy and Chirapu Narsi

Reddy in the year 2000 and they want to get it marked. The

petitioners/plaintiffs opposed on the ground that the said

document requires registration since the sale consideration is more

than Rs.20,000/-; and that as per Section 17(1)(g) of Registration

Act, an agreement of sale of immovable property of the value of

Rs.100/- and upwards shall be required to be registered. The only

exception is when the said documents is considered in a suit for

specific performance of sale in which case it need not be registered.

Since the suit is filed for injunction, the said un-registered

document cannot be received in evidence or considered for any

purpose and not even for collateral purpose and thus, the said

document is inadmissible in evidence and is liable to be rejected.

3. The respondents/defendants filed a counter denying the

averments stating that the vendors of the defendants have executed

agreement of sale in the year 2000 and delivered vacant possession

of the suit land to the respondents and since then, they are in

peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. The respondents

filed an agreement of sale alleged to have been executed by their

vendors dated 29.12.2000 along with other documents. While

marking the documents in B-Series, the Court directed to pay the

deficit stamp duty and penalty by way of impounding and directed

the Superintendent to collect the deficit stamp duty. Accordingly,

the trial Court has collected 10 times to the original agreement of

sale.

4. The trial Court, on consideration of the record, declined to

accept the plea of the petitioners and dismissed the interlocutory

application. Aggrieved thereby, the present CRP is filed.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/plaintiffs

submitted that the agreement of sale alleged to have been executed

by the vendors of the respondents, requires registration since the

sale consideration is more than Rs.20,000/-. He further submitted

that as per Section 17(1)(g) of Registration Act, an agreement of sale

of immovable property of value of Rs.100/- and upwards shall be

required to be registered and as such, the said document cannot be

received in evidence.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the

respondents/defendants submitted that the said document can be

received for collateral purpose of proving possession as stamp duty

was already paid. In support of his contention, he relied on the

decisions reported in Vengalapudi Manga Vs. Paluri Kannabbai &

others1, K.R.Subrahmanyam Vs. A.Raja Reddy2 and Sardar Ram

Singh V. Sardar Ram Singh3.

7. Admittedly, the document dated 29.12.2000 is an agreement

of sale for the value more than Rs.100/- and therefore, it requires

registration as per Section 17 of the Registration Act. Section 49 of

the Registration Act also lays down the effect of non registration of

documents required to be registered, if not registered, shall not

affect any immovable property comprised therein or such document

shall be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such

property.

8. The proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, would show

that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and

required by 1908 Act or the Transfer of Property Act, 1982 to be

registered may be received as an evidence to the contract in a suit

for specific performance or as evidence of any collateral transaction

not required to be effected by registered instrument. By virtue of

the said proviso, an unregistered sale deed of an immovable

property of the value of Rs.100/- and more can be admitted in

evidence as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be

effected by registered document.

9. Admittedly, it is a case of injunction and granting injunction

and the issue of possession, balance of convenience and irreparable

2013 5 ALD 170

2002 5 ALT 404

2004 (4) ALD 735

loss will be considered. The issue of possession is taken for

consideration and to prove the possession, the document, which is

un-registered is placed on record has been considered. It is not a

case of declaration of title, where the statutory requirement that

the document needs to be registered.

10. In catena of judgments, the Apex Court held that the sale

deed even though is not admissible in evidence can be looked into

for collateral purpose to show the nature of possession of the

parties over the suit land. The trial Court has passed a just and

reasonable order and as such, the said order needs no interference.

11. For the aforesaid reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is

dismissed, confirming the order dated 29.01.2021 in I.A.No.789 of

2019 in O.S.No.301 of 2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge,

Nalgonda. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous

petitions, if any, pending in this Civil Revision Petition shall also

stand dismissed.

_______________________________ JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD Date:14-09-2021.

Shr