Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
P.Veerraju, S/O Late Satyanarayana ... vs Lakkaraju Indira Bai, W/O Narahari Rao ... on 20 September, 2014
Author: C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy
Bench: C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1726 of 2014
20-09-2014
P.Veerraju, S/o Late Satyanarayana Murthy and another...... Petitioner
Lakkaraju Indira Bai, W/o Narahari Rao and seven others......Respondents
Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Anand Kapoor
Sri M.Satish Kumar
Counsel for the respondents: None appeared
<Gist:
>Head Note:
?Cases Referred:
NIL
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1726 of 2014
Date:20.09.2014
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order, dated 17.04.2014, in O.S.No.261 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XI Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reeddy District.
Though notices have been served on all the respondents, except on respondent No.8, no one entered appearance. As far as respondent No.8 is concerned, the notice sent to him was returned with the endorsement "unclaimed". By order, dated 27.08.2014, this Court has treated the said endorsement as deemed service.
I have heard Sri Anand Kapoor, learned counsel representing Sri M.Satish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.
The petitioners have filed the above-mentioned suit for award of compensation of Rs.13,41,606/- together with subsequent interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of realization and for costs. The suit claim consists of a sum of Rs.6 lakhs paid towards advance at the time of agreement of sale, dated 14.04.2006, a sum of Rs.4,31,606/- towards interest on Rs.6 lakhs from 14.04.2006 to 12.04.2009 at the rate of 24% per annum, a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- paid by the petitioners by way of cash to defendant No.8 towards survey expenses and a sum of Rs.2 lakhs towards pecuniary loss and mental agony suffered by the petitioners.
During the trial, the petitioners sought to mark an agreement of sale, dated 14.04.2006. The respondents raised an objection for marking the said document on the ground that the suit not being one for specific performance of agreement of sale, an unregistered agreement of sale is not admissible in evidence in view of Section 17(1)(g) of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short 'the Act). The lower Court found merit in this objection and declined to permit the petitioners to mark the said document.
On perusal of the pleadings and the contentions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners before the lower Court, I must say that it was partly self-defeating, in the sense, it was contended that the suit for recovery of damages based on the agreement of sale must be equated with the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale under Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Sri Anand Kapoor, learned counsel representing Sri M.Satish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submitted that the lower Court has failed to notice the provisions of Section 17(2)(v) of the Act. The lower Court proceeded on the premise that since the suit is not filed for specific performance of agreement of sale, an unregistered agreement of sale of immovable property is not admissible in evidence in view of Section 17(1)(g) read with Section 49 of the Act.
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.
For the above-mentioned reasons, the order of the lower Court is set aside. The lower Court is directed to mark the agreement of sale, dated 14.04.2006, in evidence.
The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the Civil Revision Petition, interim order, dated 15.07.2014, is vacated and CRPMP.No.2417 of 2014 stands disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY 20th September, 2014