Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Abdul Majeed vs Yadram Suresh And Another on 7 February, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001(2)ALD525, 2001(2)ALT417
JUDGMENT
1. The Plaintiff, who is the petitioner herein, seeks to challenge the orders in IA No.428 of 1999 in OS No.38 of 1994 dated 5-7-2000 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Tandur, Ranga, Reddy District allowing an application filed by the respondents-defendants and holding that the document dated 25-8-1992 is admissible in evidence and does not require registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act.
2. During the course of the trial, the respondents-defendants sought to introduce the said documents dated 25-8-1992 which is styled as a 'kararnama' executed on Rs.10/- stamp paper in their favour and claimed that it falls under Article 5 or 6 of the Indian Stamp Act and does not require registration and, therefore, admissible. However, the petitioner-plaintiff objected that the said document is a release deed and falls under Article 46 of the Stamp Act and therefore it is compulsorily registrable under Section 17 of the Registration Act and as such cannot be received in evidence.
3. On a consideration for the contents of the said document, the Court below treated the said document as an agreement mainly on the ground that in fact no right as such is sought to be transferred under the said document.
4. After hearing the counsel on either side, and a reading of the document, it shows that the executant Abdul Majeed, son of Lal Mohammed stated that he had purchased an open plot through a registered sale deed dated 6-1-1984 from one Gundappa, S/o. Venkanna. But after purchasing the same, he came to know that the vendor Gundappa had already sold the said land in favour of one Venupaksha through a registered sale deed and, therefore, he cannot be the owner and possessor of the said land and he is not in possession of the same on the basis of a sale deed. Further, the said Venupaksha had gifted the said land in favour of one Y. Siddamma through a gift deed dated 28-11-1984 and accordingly the ownership and possession of the said land is with the said Smt. Siddamm. However, it says that under mutual understanding and having received Rs. 13,000/- from Y. Siddamma, he undertakes that he will not file any false suit on the basis of the said illegal sale deed dated 6-1-1984 and in case of default, he will refund the said amount with interest to Siddamma. Thus, from the very nature of the contents of the said document, it shows that though Abdul Majeed has purchased in pursuance of a sale deed, he could not get any title as the land was already transferred in favour of another person, who in turn again executed a gift deed. Further, having received the sum, he sought to record that he will not file any false claim. On this very basis, the contention of the respondents is that no title itself has passed in favour of Abdul Majeed. The question of any further transfer or relinquishment is not there but it only records the non-existence of any such right and, therefore, there being no creation or extinction of any right, title or interest, the provisions of Section 17 of the Registration Act are not attracted. However, it has to be seen that if a transaction is entered into with a vendor, who himself has already parted with the property, no doubt no title would pass and if any such vendee tries to rely on such document, it can safely be held that the said vendee did not get any title. However, when there is an admission of non-existence of any such right or giving up claim in pursuance of the sale deed, which though did not confer any title, more so on receipt of consideration as pointed out under the document, it certainly reiterates, reasserts that such executant had no right title or interest which only results into the relinquishment or release of the rights in whatever form. In view of the same, for the purpose of Section 17 of the Registration Act, a document which purports to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any right title or interest requires registration even though the executant had no title. Therefore, the said document needs to be registered and properly stamped. It cannot be said that it is only an assertion or reiteration or declaration of a fact, which does not in any way affect any right title or interest. However, once a document is sought to be executed with such reiteration or even a declaration, it certainly touches upon creation, declaration and assignment limiting or extinguishing whatever right title or interest whether valid or invalid. In view of the very terms as such, it can in no circumstances be said that the said document is an agreement falling under Articles 5 and 6 of the Stamp Act. I am also fortified in this view of mine by the decision of a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court in Abdul Rahman v. Gurdit Singh, AIR 1934 Lahore 604, wherein while considering the provisions of Sections 17 and 49 of the Rcgislration Act, it was held that a document which purports to declare that the executants held no title in the house and have relinquished their action, requires registration and if unregistered is inadmissible in evidence.
5. In view of the above, the revision is allowed. As the documents in question is not only insufficiently stamped but also not registered, cannot be received in evidence. No costs.