Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
V.S. Ravinder Raj And Others vs Siddala Narasimha And Others on 6 December, 2014
Author: C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy
Bench: C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY C.R.P.No.1603 of 2014 06-12-2014 V.S. Ravinder Raj and others.. Petitioner Siddala Narasimha and others.. Respondents Counsel for petitioners : Mr. J. Suresh Babu for Mr. K. Mahipathi Rao Counsel for respondents 1 to 4: None appeared The Court made the following : ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order dated 10-4-2014 in O.S.No.212 of 2010 on the file of the XI Additional District Judge (FTC), Ranga Reddy District.
None appeared for respondent Nos.1 to 4.
Mr. J. Suresh Babu, learned Counsel representing Mr. K. Mahipathi Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioners, stated that he is unable to get the notices served on respondent Nos.6 and 7 and that therefore they are not pressing the Revision Petition against the said respondents. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed only to the extent of respondent Nos.6 and 7.
The petitioners filed the above mentioned suit for refund of the advance amount paid by them to the respondents under agreement of sale dated 21-12-2006. During trial, the petitioner sought to mark the suit agreement of sale. The lower Court has however refused to mark the said document on the ground that in view of amendment to clause (g) of sub- section (1) of Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short the Act), the suit agreement is compulsorily registerable and that as the suit is not filed for specific performance of the agreement of sale, the benefit of the proviso to Section 49 of the Act is not available to the petitioners.
Section 17 of the Act envisages documents of which registration is compulsory. Under the A.P. State Amendment inserted by Act 4 of 1999, an agreement of sale of immovable property of the value of Rs.100/- and upwards is made compulsorily registerable. However, through the same amendment, the A.P. State Legislature has amended sub-clause (v) of sub- section (2) of Section 17 of the Act, which reads as under :
Nothing in clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) applies to any document other than the documents specified in sub-section (1A) except an agreement of sale as mentioned in clause (g) of sub- section (1) not in itself creating, declaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing any right, title or interest of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property, but merely creating a right to obtain another document which will, when executed, create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any such right, title or interest.
In P. Veerraju Vs. Lakkaraju Indira Bai while considering this provision, this Court held as under :
The lower Court has overlooked the vital aspect, viz., as per A.P. Act 4 of 1999, the State Government of Andhra Pradesh has inserted clause-(g) to Section 17(1) of the Act by making the registration of agreement of sale of immovable property of the value of Rs.100/- and upwards compulsory. Sub-clause (v) of sub- section (2) of Section 17 of the Act made exceptions to this rule. It has exempted two categories of documents from compulsory registration, viz., any document other than the documents specified in sub-section (1-A) and those which do not in themselves create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any right, title or interest of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards to or in immovable property, but which merely create a right to obtain another document which will, when executed, create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any such right, title or interest Reading clause (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Act along with clause (v) of sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the Act would mean that the agreements of sale of immovable property of the value of Rs.100/- and upwards falling in the two exceptions referred to above are not liable for registration. In the absence of any finding that the suit document does not fall in the two exceptions referred to above, the proposed agreement of sale is admissible in evidence.
There is yet another reason for which the agreement of sale is admissible in evidence. The proviso to Section 49 of the Act carves out two exceptions for admissibility of the unregistered documents. Under the said proviso, an unregistered document, which is compulsorily registerable, is still admissible in evidence under two circumstances, viz., (1) if such document is filed in a suit for specific performance; and (2) the same is sought to be filed as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument.
The present case falls under the second limb of the proviso because the suit being one for recovery of damages, even assuming that the document requires registration, the same can be admitted in evidence for collateral purpose i.e., for recovery of money and not for specific performance of agreement of sale. The lower Court has overlooked these crucial aspects in refusing to mark the document.
The ratio of the above reproduced Judgment applies in all fours to this case as the document in question being an agreement of sale simplicitor falls under sub-clause (v) of sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the Act. Further, as the relief claimed in the suit is only for refund of the advance money paid under the agreement of sale, the document can be looked into for collateral purpose under the second exception contained in the proviso to Section 49 of the Act. The lower Court has completely overlooked this aspect.
For the above mentioned reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, qua respondent Nos.1 to 4.
As a sequel to the disposal of the Civil Revision Petition, CRPMP No.2258 of 2014 is disposed of as infructuous.
________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 6-12-2014