Telangana High Court
Bathula Venkateswara Reddy vs Bathula Yalamanda Reddy on 4 September, 2023
Author: P.Sree Sudha
Bench: P.Sree Sudha
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1284 of 2023
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Order dated 06.03.2023 in I.A.No.1433 of 2022 in O.S.No.210 of 2010 passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge - cum - Judicial Magistrate of first Class at Huzurnagar.
2. The petitioner/plaintiff filed an application in I.A.No.1433 of 2022 in O.S.No.210 of 2010 before the trial Court under Order XIII rule 3 and 4 r/w. Section 151 of C.P.C, seeking to De-Exhibit the Agreement of Sale marked under Ex.B19. The trial Court after considering the arguments of both sides and also the citations filed before the Court dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the said Order, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.
3. Heard arguments of both sides and perused the entire evidence on record.
4. Perusal of the record shows that the suit in O.S.No.210 of 2010 was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for Perpetual 2 Injunction against respondents/defendants. Plaintiff and defendant No.1 are own brothers. They partitioned their ancestral property long back and enjoying their respective shares and revenue authorities have also issued ROR Passbook and title deed in favour of plaintiff, but the said Passbook and title deed bearing No.13544 was in the custody of the defendant No.1, as he intended to get compensation in respect of other lands which were acquired by the Government for Pulichinthala project and the same were not returned. Defendants No.2 and 3 are the sons of the defendant No.1. As the plaintiff is issueless, defendants are threatening him to gift the suit land to them and also to adopt one of the sons of defendant No.1, but he refused.
5. Petitioner/Plaintiff filed the Agreement of Sale dated 18.06.2004 and the perusal of the same shows that plaintiff executed the said document in favour of defendant No.1, in which he sold his share of land for Rs.95,000/- and on receiving the same, handed over the possession of the land. The dispute is regarding the marking of the said document. The main objection raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff is that the Agreement was unregistered and improperly stamped. Accordingly, it was impounded by the District Collector after collecting deficit Stamp fee and penalty, 3 as such respondents/defendants contended that there is no irregularity in marking the document as Ex.B19. The sale Agreement was executed on Rs.100/- non-judicial bond. The entire sale consideration was received by the plaintiff and possession was also handed over to the defendants. No doubt, the said document was not registered, but the Stamp duty and penalty was paid and it was impounded in a suit for injunction.
6. The learned Counsel for the respondents relied upon the Order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in the case of Moghal Sardar Hussain Baig Vs. Syed Farveej Begum, 1 in which it was held that unregistered draft lease agreement was ineffectual to create a valid lease for want of registration as required under Section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act, but it was admissible under the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act only for a collateral purpose of showing the nature and character of possession of the defendants. The proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, which is relevant for the present purpose, carved out an exception to the rule contained in the main provision as regards the effect of an unregistered document requiring registration and receiving of such document as evidence of any transaction. The proviso 1 AIR 2017 Hyd 146 4 permits such document to be received as evidence under two contingencies, namely (1) as a piece of evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance in Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 and (2) as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered document. He further relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of K.Ramamoorthi Vs. C.Surendranatha Reddy, 2 in which it was held that the unregistered sale deed is admissible in evidence for the collateral purpose to the limited extent of showing possession of the plaintiff. A collateral transaction means, a transaction other than the transaction affecting the immovable property but which is in some way connected with it."
He also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in the case of Peddina Subba Rao Vs. Peddina Prasad and others, 3 in which it was held that unregistered document may be required in evidence to prove the factum of the transaction, but not its contents. The main purpose of marking document in the suit was only to prove that they were in possession at the time of filing the suit. 2 2012 SCC Online AP 125 3 2020 SCC Online AP 95 5
7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Avinash Kumar Chauhan Vs. Vijay Krishna Mishra, held as follows:
"It is now well settled that there is no prohibition under Section 49 of the Registration Act, to receive an unregistered document in evidence for collateral purpose. But the document so tendered should be duly stamped or should comply with the requirements of section 35 of the Stamp Act, if not stamped, as a document cannot be received in evidence even for collateral purpose unless it is duly stamped or duty and penalty are paid under Section 35 of the Stamp Act."
8. In view of the above discussion and the legal principles set out in the above citations, this Court finds that the trial Court rightly considered the arguments of both sides and dismissed the application. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the Order of the trial Court and the present Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and is dismissed.
9. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, confirming the Order of the trial Court dated 06.03.2023 in I.A.No.1433 of 2022 in O.S.No.210 of 2010. There shall be no Order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA DATE: 04.09.2023 tri 6 THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1284 of 2023 DATE: 04.09.2023 TRI