Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Andhra Rastriya Adi Shaiva Archaka ... vs Chundru Krishna Rao, on 30 November, 2022
THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI
Civil Revision Petition No.1124 of 2020
ORDER:
This revision, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is preferred against the order, dated 03.03.2020, allowing I.A.No.14 of 2020 in O.S.No.349 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, filed under Order XIII Rules 3 & 6 and Section 151 CPC praying to de-exhibit exhibit A14, unregistered relinquishment deed, dated 18.05.1971.
2. Heard Sri Srinivas Basava, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/respondent/plaintiff and Sri G.V.S.Mehar Kumar, learned counsel for respondents/petitioners/defendants 6 & 7.
3. The facts stated in the affidavit, in brief, are that the plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants for declaration, permanent injunction and for cancellation of the registered documents. The 1st defendant filed her written statement which was adopted by defendants 2 to 5. The 8th defendant is set ex parte. The suit was posted to 11.12.2019 for cross-examination of plaintiff as PW1. After filing of chief affidavit of PW1, while affirming the said affidavit as evidence, the trial Court marked exhibits A1 to A48 on 16.10.2019. While marking the said documents, the trial Court 2 BSB, J C.R.P.No.1124 of 2020 inadvertently marked the unregistered relinquishment deed, dated 18.05.1971, said to have been executed by Ponnuri Punnaiah in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property as exhibit A14. The defendants took an objection in marking the relinquishment deed, Exhibit A14, as the same is required to be registered. As the plaintiff claims the suit schedule property basing on the said relinquishment deed, dated 18.05.1971, the said document is a vital document. At the time of marking the said document, the counsel for the defendants abstained from Court due to boycott. There is no willful default or gross negligence on the part of the defendants in not raising objection at the earliest point of time. Hence, exhibit A14, unregistered relinquishment deed, dated 18.05.1971, is required to be de-exhibited, as the same is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration.
4. The plaintiff filed counter opposing the petition and contending that the trial Court marked exhibit A14, unregistered relinquishment deed, only after considering its contents. The denial of a document alone does not make it inadmissible. Exhibit A14 is not a relinquishment deed and the defendants never raised the issue of inadmissibility of the document either in their written statement or in the interlocutory application, viz., I.A.No.502 of 2019, which was filed for sending the relinquishment deed to the District Registrar, Narasaraopet, for impounding the said document. 3
BSB, J C.R.P.No.1124 of 2020 It is not open for the defendants to plead that they could not raise objection at the earliest point of time due to boycott by the advocates. The document was marked on 16.10.2019. The suit was posted to 13.11.2019 for cross-examination of PW1. As the counsel for the defendants was absent on that day, the suit was posted to 04.12.2019 and as the counsel was again absent on 04.12.2019 also, the matter stood posted to 11.12.2019. On 11.12.2019, the defendants 6 & 7 came up with this application to avoid cross-examination. There are no bona fides on the part of the defendants. The petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. On contest, the trial Court allowed the petition holding that exhibit A14, relinquishment deed, dated 18.05.1971, is a compulsorily registerable document under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act and it cannot be received in evidence and that therefore, the relinquishment deed, which is marked as exhibit A14 is rejected being inadmissible.
6. The aggrieved plaintiff preferred this revision mainly contending that none of the defendants raised any objection on the admissibility of the document in question; that once the document is impounded and stamp duty is collected, de-exhibiting on the ground of non-registration of the document is unwarranted; that the order impugned is bereft of reasons; that the trial Court failed to 4 BSB, J C.R.P.No.1124 of 2020 appreciate the content of the document; the document, dated 18.05.1971, is not a relinquishment deed but it is only a declaration statement given in writing; that the defendants did not file counter in I.A.No.502 of 2019; that the existence of the property, execution of the document and the signatures thereon, the genuineness of the document are not questioned by the defendants; that the present application is filed only with a view to drag on the proceedings to avoid cross-examination. The order impugned is unsustainable.
7. The grievance of the revision petitioner is that the trial Court straightaway de-exhibited the document only on the ground that it was not registered as required under Section 17 of the Registration Act, without recording any reasons and whereas the said document does not require any registration at all since it is only a letter clarifying the fact that amount of consideration was passed from general public. It is also argued that when the document was sent for collection of stamp duty to the Registrar, no objection was raised and even at the time of marking of the document also, no objection was raised, however, at the fag-end of the matter, this petition is filed to demark the document.
8. As can be seen from the contents of the written statement, it was mentioned that the document in question is not admissible. Therefore, it cannot be said that no objection was earlier taken to 5 BSB, J C.R.P.No.1124 of 2020 mark the document. Moreover, the objection as to inadmissibility of a document for want of registration can be taken at any stage.
9. A perusal of the document shows that there are clear admissions of relinquishing the right in the property. Though, in view of registration of the property in the name of the Secretary of the Committee, by virtue of his status, but the purchase was made with the help of an elder person of the choultry, by name, Adishaivulu, and this deed was executed in view of the suspicion of the members of the committee of the choultry and as per the advice of the well-wishers and friends. It is, in fact, the main defence taken in the suit that the sale deed was executed in the name of the Secretary of the Committee, but the property does not belong to him and the property is put to use for general public etc. Therefore, the document in dispute now, apart from dealing with the fact of relinquishing the right, it dealt with some other factual background of the earlier sale deed and the facts which lead to execution of this document. As such, by virtue of this document, the right in favour of the Secretary under the sale deed of the said property is declared to be relinquished, though under whatever circumstances stated therein, it requires registration. The trial Court rightly held that the document cannot be received in evidence for want of registration. Since it is not registered, it cannot be used for the main purpose. 6
BSB, J C.R.P.No.1124 of 2020 However, it can be used for collateral purpose as permitted under Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908.
10. The trial Court was of the view that the document requires registration treating it as a relinquishment deed and demarked the document which is already marked as exhibit A14, since, it was not registered and Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, prohibits such document to be received in evidence. It also noted in the impugned order that such document can be used to prove collateral purpose though not for main purpose. In such a situation, it ought to have examined whether the same document can be used for any collateral purpose by specifically indicating the purpose for which it can be so used. The fact that deficit stamp duty is collected indicates that the document was intended to be used in evidence. When this document cannot be received in evidence for main purpose for want of registration, it is necessary to specify the collateral purpose for which it can be received in evidence. Since the trial Court has not considered whether exhibit A14 can be used in evidence for any collateral purpose and straightaway demarked the document, which is for want of registration, the impugned order is liable to be set aside remanding the matter to the trial Court to hear both parties and decide whether the said document can be used for any specific collateral purpose.
7
BSB, J C.R.P.No.1124 of 2020
11. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order, dated 03.03.2020, passed in I.A.No.14 of 2020 in O.S.No.349 of 2016.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________ B.S BHANUMATHI, J 30-11-2022 RAR