Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Pathapati Yanadi Reddy vs Nukalapati Subbamma on 22 October, 2024
1
APHC010351652019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3458]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3271/2019
Between:
Pathapati Yanadi Reddy ...PETITIONER
AND
Nukalapati Subbamma ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. P V RAGHU RAM
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. K RATHANGA PANI REDDY
The Court made the following:
ORDER:-
The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the docket order dated 26.08.2019 in O.S.No.277 of 2019 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kavali.
2. During the course of trial in the suit, on account of an objection raised by the defendant, the learned Judge over ruled the objection that the unregistered agreement of sale dated 31.10.1981, can be received in 2 evidence and marked as exhibit. Aggrieved the said order, the present revision petition is filed.
3. The parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in the suit.
4. The plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction against the defendant. The case of the plaintiff is that her husband entered into an agreement of sale dated 01.08.1981, and pursuant to the said agreement, they were put in possession of the property. During the lifetime of the plaintiff's husband, it is contended he has obtained necessary permissions from Gram Panchayath for water and his name was also recorded in Gram Panchayath records. Upon the demise of her husband, she was in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property. It is contended that subsequently, as the defendant from the point "A - I" of the schedule property was trying to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, the plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.
5. During the course of cross examination, the defendant objected the marking of the unregistered agreement of sale dated 31.10.1981. The learned Judge rejected the contention of the defendant and ordered marking of the said document. Hence the instant Revision Petition. 3
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case Balram Singh Vs. Kelo Devi1, and the decision of this Court in the case of V. Madhusudhan Rao & Ors. Vs. S. Nirmala Bai & Ors2., contends that the suit filed for permanent injunction, without seeking for specific relief of execution of the sale deed, the suit for injunction on the basis of an unregistered agreement of sale is not maintainable and so also the said unregistered agreement cannot be exhibited in evidence. The contention of the defendant as stated in the written statement is as under:-
"11) One Meda Audiseshamma got right an extent of 0-
02 ankanams of site out of 0-30 ankanams. She sold her property on 27-5-1962 to Puthalapalli Balarami Reddy and his four sons by name Jayarami Reddy, Subbarami Reddy, Kondandarami Reddy and Sreeramulu Reddy.
Subsequently there is a partition among tem. The said 0-02 ankanams fell to the share of Putchalapalli Subbarami Reddy. The Subbarami Reddy have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of an extent of 0-02 ankanams. The said Subbarami Reddy intends to sell the same to this defendant by name Yanadi Reddy. The said Putchalapalli Subbarami Reddy son of Balarami Reddy and Putchalapalli Venugopal Reddy son of Venkata Subba Reddy got right 0- 26 ankanams out of 0-30 ankanams and Putchalapalli Subbarami Reddy son of Balarami Reddy got right 0-02 ankanams out of 0-30 ankanams. Both are offered to sell their respective shares to this defendant long back and delivered possession to this defendant. But this defendant did not obtained any register in respect of 28 ankanams. This defendant requested them to execute a registered sale 1 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1283 2 2019 SCC OnLine AP 58 4 deed in his favour. Then they executed a registered sale deed dated 10-8-2009 under document No. 3334/2009". He thus contends that the unregistered agreement of sale cannot even be marked for collateral purpose.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K.B. Saha and Sons Private Limited Vs. Development Consultant Limited, 3 wherein it is observed as under:-
"34. From the principles laid down in the various decisions of this Court and the High Courts, as referred to hereinabove, it is evident that :-
1. A document required to be registered is not admissible into evidence under Section 49 of the Registration Act.
2. Such unregistered document can however be used as an evidence of collateral purpose as provided in the Proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act.
3. A collateral transaction must be independent of, or divisible from, the transaction to effect which the law required registration.
4. A collateral transaction must be a transaction not itself required to be effected by a registered document, that is, a transaction creating, etc. any right, title or interest in immoveable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards.
5. If a document is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration, none of its terms can be admitted in evidence 3 (2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 564 5 and that to use a document for the purpose of proving an important clause would not be using it as a collateral purpose."
8. And on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K. Ramamoorthi Vs. C. Surendranatha Reddy4, wherein it is observed as under:-
"The question is whether the unregistered sale deed dated 23.1.1976 sought to be produced by the plaintiff in evidence in a suit for permanent injunction could be marked for a "collateral purposes"?
xxx
25. Having culled out the legal propositions, the discussion on this issue will be incomplete if a few illustrations as to what constitutes collateral transaction are not enumerated as given out in Radhomal Alumal (2 supra) and other Judgments. They are as under:
a) If a lessor sues his lessee for rent on an unregistered lease which has expired at the date of the suit, he cannot succeed for two reasons, namely, that the lease which is registrable is unregistered and that the period of lease has expired on the date of filing of the suit. However, such a lease deed can be relied upon by the plaintiff in a suit for possession filed after expiry of the lease to prove the nature of the defendant's possession.
b) An unregistered mortgage deed requiring registration may be received as evidence to prove the money debt, provided, the mortgage deed contains a personal covenant by the mortgagor to pay (See: Queen-Empress v Rama Tevan20, P.V.M.Kunhu Moidu v T.Madhava Menon21 and Vani v Bani, (96) 20 Bom. 553).4
2012 (6) ALD 163 6
c) In an unregistered agreement dealing with the right to share in certain lands and also to a share in a cash allowance, the party is entitled to sue on the document in respect of movable property (Hanmantapparao v Ramabai Hanmant, ('19) 6 AIR 1919 Bom.38 = 21 Bom. L.R 716).
d) An unregistered deed of gift requiring registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act is admissible in evidence not to prove the gift, but to explain by reference to it the character of the possession of the person who held the land and who claimed it, not by virtue of deed of gift but by setting up the plea of adverse possession (Varada Pillai's case ( supra)).
(e) A sale deed of immovable property requiring registration but not registered can be used to show nature of possession (Radhomal Alumal's case (supra), Bondar Singh's case (supra) and A.Kishore's case (supra).
The above instances are only illustrative and not exhaustive. There may be many more situations where a transaction can be collateral to the transaction which affects the immovable property. The Courts will have to carefully decide on a case to case basis in the light of the legal principles contained in the above discussed and various other judgments holding the field.
26. When we apply the above crystallized legal position to the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that the unregistered sale deed is admissible in evidence for the collateral purpose to the limited extent of showing possession of the plaintiff." He contends that the unregistered agreement of sale can be received in evidence for collateral purpose to the extent of showing possession of the plaintiff
9. Heard Sri P.V. Raghu Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent. 7
10. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable on facts, having regard to the fact that in the case of V. Madhusudhan Rao's referred supra, the suit was filed for partition. In the said suit, the plaintiffs have taken a plea by way of amendment, that the sale deed executed in favour of the defendant therein is not valid, since it is an unregistered document. In the said circumstances, this Court observed that the said document cannot be received in evidence even for collateral purposes observing the possession is not a collateral transaction that is independent or divisible from transfer recorded in the sale deed. And in Balram Singh's case referred supra. The suit was filed for permanent injunction by the plaintiff against the defendant, vendor, basing on an unregistered agreement of sale dated 23.03.1996. In the facts of the said case, since the plaintiff without seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale filed suit for injunction in the said circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable, without seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale, when the defendant had specifically asked for delivery of possession through counter claim. Under the said circumstances, the Apex Court has observed the unregistered agreement of sale cannot be received in evidence even for collateral purposes.
11. Whereas in the facts of the present case, as far as the unregistered agreement of sale is concerned, the defendant is a third party 8 alleged to have been interfering with the possession of the plaintiff. Since between the plaintiff and the defendant there is no privity of contract, the subject document of agreement of sale can be received in evidence for collateral purposes. Since the dispute is not between the parties to the document, and no relief is sought against the parties to the document of unregistered agreement of sale dated 01.08.1981, the contention of the petitioner that without seeking the relief of performance of agreement of sale the suit for injunction is not maintainable, and the said document cannot be exhibited in evidence, is misplaced. This Court therefore is of the view that the order under revision does not call for any interference.
12. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date:22.10.2024 MVK 9 THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3271 of 2019 Date:22.10.2024 MVK