Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Ummadi Subramanyam vs Ekka Dhanamma And Another on 19 July, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999(5)ALD26, 1999(4)ALT706
ORDER
1. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Rajampet dated 3-2-1999 with regard to the admissibility of the suit document dated 10-3-1984 in OS No.135/96, the petitioner who is the plaintiff in the suit filed this revision petition before this Court.
2. Heard both the Counsel.
3. The case of the petitioner is that he purchased the suit schedule property under the document in question dated 10-3-1984 from the husband of the first respondent and obtained an un-registered document whereunder he was put in possession of the property. Subsequently, after the death of the executants, the petitioner approached the Court by way of filing the suit - OS No.135/96 to direct the respondents to execute a regular sale-deed under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act. The document being an un-registered document, the respondents raised an objection that it is not admissible in evidence as the same is required to be registered under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908. The learned Judge having construed the document held that it is a regular sale-deed and upheld the objection raised by the respondents stating that the same is not admissible in evidence.
4. I have perused the document in question and the recitals will prove beyond doubt that it is a regular sale-deed. The only question that arises for consideration is whether the said document can be received in evidence under proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act. Section 49 of the Registration Act provides that a document affecting any immovable property required to be registered under Section 17 of the said Act or under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, shall not be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power unless it has been registered From this it is seen that even if an un-registered document is produced before the Court a discretion is given to the Court to impound the document and admit the same in evidence. Proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act says that an un-registered document affecting immovable property and required either by the Registration 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 II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. As this being a suit for specific performance, as per the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, even if it is a sale-deed the same can be admitted in evidence. But the question of admitting the same in evidence will arise only after the Court impounds the document as contemplated under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Under Section 33 of the Stamp Act, every person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, and every person-in-charge of a public office, except an officer of a police, before whom any instrument, chargeable, in his opinion, with duty, is produced or comes in the performance of his functions, shall, if it appears to him that such instrument is not duly stamped, impound the same. The procedure for impounding the document is specified under Section 35 of the Stamp Act and after impounding the document the same can be admitted in evidence under Section 37 of the said Act. Thereafter, the officer concerned has to send the authenticated copy of such instrument together with a certificate in writing, stating the amount of duly and penalty levied in respect thereof and shall send such amount to the Collector or to such person as he may appoint in this behalf. That being the legal position, the order of the Junior Civil Judge cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the learned Judge is directed to follow the procedure prescribed for impounding the document under the provisions of the Stamp Act. It is needless to observe that if the party consents for impounding the document, the Court itself can impound the document, otherwise it has to direct the party concerned to approach the Collector or the person authorised by him for getting the document impounded before the same is received in evidence.
5. With the above directions, the CRP, is allowed, but in the circumstances with no order as to costs.