Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Gomuguntla Leela Krishna Murthy vs Kancherla Koteswaramma And Another on 24 June, 2019

Author: T. Rajani

Bench: T. Rajani

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE,
TWO THOUSAND AND NINETEEN s

 

PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMY JUSTICE T. RAJANI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 770 OF 2048

Fetition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, filed against
the order dated 04/01/2018 passed in LA. No.758 of 2077 in O.S.No. 34 of
2077 on the Te of the Court of the Alll Additional District Judge,
Narasaraopel.

Between.

Gomuqunila Leela Krishna Murthy, S/o Subba Rao, Hindu, Aged about 50
years, Occ: Business, R/fo Kattubadivaripalem Village, Chilakaluripeta
Mandal, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh.
.Petitioner/Petitioner/Plaintiff
AND

7. Kancherla Koteswaramma Represented by her Special Power of
Aitarney, Kancherla Srinivasa Rao, S/o Krishna Murthy, Hindu, Aged
about 35 years, LIC Agent, R/o D.No.20-&-31, Gandala Bazar,
Narasaraopet Tawn, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

2. Kancherla Srinivasa Rao, S/o Krishna Murthy, Hindu, Aged about 36
years, LIC Agent, R/o. D.No 20-65-31, Gandala Bazar, Narasaraopet
Town, Gurrtur District, Andhra Pradesh.

..Respondenis/Respondants

IA NO: 1 OF 2098

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit fled in support of the petition, the High Court may be
leased to stay all further proceedings in O.S.No. 34 of 2071 pending an

the fde of the AIH Additional District Judge, Narasaracpet.
IANO: 1 OF 2019

Patition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed In support of the petition, the Nigh Court may be

cleased ta extend the interim orders dated 23/02/2018 in IA No.1 of 2018

in CRP No.7 70 af 2018 until further orders.
 

 

IA NO: 2 OF 2018

Between:

1. Kancherla Koteswaramma Represented by her Special Power of
Attorney, Kancherla Srinivasa Rao, S/o Krishna Murthy, Hindu, Aged
about 36 years, LIC Agent, Rfo D.No.20-5-31, Gandala Bazar,
Narasaraopet Town, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

2. Kancherla Srinivasa Rao, S/o Krishna Murthy, Hindu, Aged about 36
years, LIC Agent, R/o, D.No.20-5-31, Gandala Bazar, Narasaraopet
Town, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

.Petitioners/Respondents
AND

Gomugunitla Leela Krishna Murthy, Sfo Subba Rao, Hindu, Aged about 50
years, Oce: Business, R/o Kattubadivaripalem Village, Chilakaluripeta
Mandal, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh.

._ _Respondent/Petitioner

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased to vacate the interim stay order dated 23/02/2018 in LA.No.1 of
2078 in C.R.P No. 770 of 2018.

Caunsel for the Petitioner: Sri Ghanta Sridhar

Counsel for the Respondents: Ms. T.V. Sri Devi
The Court made the following: ORDER
 

SMT FUSTICE T. RAJANT
CIVIL REVISION PRTYPION No. 776 of 2018

ORDER:

This revision is preferred agaist the arder, dated O40) SOLS, passed in LA No. 758 of 2017 in O.S.No.34 of 2011, by virtue of which the court dismissed the petition, which was fled under Section 49 of the Registration Act r/w IS] CPC seeking to acirut the draft sale deed, dated 09.09.2009, and the agreement of sale, dated 20.08.2009, in evidence as per the proviso to Section 49 ofthe Registration Act, 4

2. Heard the counsel for the petrtioner as well as the counsel for the respondent

3. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the court considered that earlier there was a docket order passed by the court in OS No.8 of 2010, which was clubbed with O.S.No.34 of

201) refusing to mark the same document. Against the said docket order, the petitioner therein preferred revision and the High Court confumed the order. A perusal of the docket order shows that no reasons were absolutely mentioned, a, Be that as i¢ may, the counsel now submits that the document at present is sought to be marked in O.S.No.34 of 2aul and net in OS.No.8 of 201f iw which refusal to admit the document was recorded. We also draws the attention of this court tO proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, wherein an unregistered docurnent effecting immovable property and required by this Act or the Transfer of Property Act, to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter [1 of the Specific Relief Act or as evidence of ary collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered iistrument.

5, The earlier petition was filed in O.S.No.8 of 2010, while this petition is filed in O.S.No.34 of 2011, which is a suit for specific performance. As already observed, the docket order in O.S.No 8 of 2010 is not a reasoned order, which does not even reflect the objections raised by other side. However, O.S.No.8 of 2010 is Gled for recovery of possession and O.S.No.34 of 2011 is filed for specific performance, in which the unregistered agreement of sale becomes relevant and. admissible. Though the suits are clubbed, the aspect of relevancy cannot be overlooked. tn fact, the lower court ought to have marked the document in O.S.No.& of 2010 itself as the document is admissible in O.S.No.34 of 2011, which is clubbed with O.S.No.8 of 2010 without confining to the consideration of relevancy in Q.S.No.8 of 2010. The docket order in O.S.No.8 of S010 shall not, in the above circumstances, operate as a bar to allow marking of the document in O.S.No.34 of 2011.

2 Hence, in view of the. above discussion and gome by the purport of the above provision, the permission to get the document marked cannot be refused. The impugned order is set aside and the agreement of sale, dated 20.08.2009, would be marked subject to proof and relevancy by considering the objections, if any, that may he taken by the counsel for the respondents. However, the draft sale deed, dated 09.09.2009, being an inadmissible document, cannot be marked.

8. With the above observations, the Civil Revision Petition is partly allowed.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

SD/- K. JAGAN MOHAN ASSISTANT REGISTRAR TRUE COPY! SECTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Smt. Justice T. Rajani {For Her Lorship's kind perusal} To The Alll Additional District Judge, Narasaraopet, Guntur District One CC to Sri Ghanta Sridhar, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Smt. TV. Sri Devi, Advocate [OPUC] 9 LR Copies The Under Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi.

The Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Advocates Association, High Caurt Buildings at Amaravathi.

Two CD Copies.

Un ON mo | my ~ JSR S, i ak fe att AN "

oy GO igs iy iy, by POM iggy po to A Loe, %, Eo on 4, wo pitas?

Gen % fOr y x Where ft o ™= co od "tae 6 Cc etary =f ™ 4 ny PARTLY ALLOWING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION oD er

--_ sd fedvass oO Scot fox i a én i.

fe or) HIGH COURT DATED ORDER