Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 850 (AP)

Sabbana Venugopala Rao v. Chintada Suryanarayana

2006-07-19

C.V.RAMULU

body2006
ORDER This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order dated 28-02-2006 made in a.S.No.5 of 2000 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bobbili. 2. The petitioner is the plaintiff and respondents 1 and 2 are the defendants 1 and 2 respectively in the suit. 3. The suit is laid for declaration of right of pre-emption of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property against the defendants etc. The affidavit in chief of P.W.1 was filed and he was cross-examined before the Court below. When the document dated 27 -3-1978 sought to be marked, the defendants took an objection that it not only requires proper stamp duty but also requires registration since the document is filed for the main relief sought in the suit. After hearing both the parties, the Court below passed the impugned order stating that the objection raised by the defendants for marking the document and also receiving the same is sustainable and therefore, the same is inadmissible in evidence. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been preferred learned counsel for the petitioner states that the document in question is only an agreement dated 27-3-1978 executed by D-1 in favour of the father of the petitioner. 4. It seems that the father of the petitioner executed a registered sale deed in favour of D-1 on 27-3-1978. On the very same day an agreement was also entered into, to the effect, that whenever D-1 wants to sell the property, he shall sell it to the father of the petitioner alone and none else. But it seems that in the year 1999, D-1 executed a registered sale deed in favour of D-2. Therefore, he filed the present suit claiming right of pre-emption. The prayer in the suit is couched in such a manner that relief sought for is only to declare that the petitioner-plaintiff is entitled for a right of preemption under the agreement and nothing else. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents supported the order passed by the Court below and submitted that the Court below has passed cogent and reasoned order on the basis of a Judgment of this Court reported in Netrambaka Krishnaiah v. Nellore Audinarayana1. Therefore, the document dated 27-3-1978 requires compulsory registration since it is not registered and the same is inadmissible in evidence. 6. Therefore, the document dated 27-3-1978 requires compulsory registration since it is not registered and the same is inadmissible in evidence. 6. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also perused the other material available on record. 7. At the out set, I am of the opinion that the approach made by the Court below was not right. The purpose for which the document sought to be marked is different from the relief to which the petitioner is entitled to. It depends upon the evidence led by both the parties. The document dated 27-3-1978 does not confer any right on the petitioner except enabling him to claim the right of pre-emption. Therefore, it cannot be said that it requires registration. In a decision reported in 2006 (1) AL T page 76, the suit was filed for mandatory injunction for restoration of channel created earlier in the field of defendant as per terms of agreement and for permanent injunction, it was held that the very terms of the agreement if implemented would result in restoration of the very channel for which the suit was filed. Therefore, in the nature of the relief sought and in the nature of agreement it was made clear that it requires registration compulsorily. But in the case on hand, the nature of the agreement does not create any right in the property immediately except a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to purchase the same. 8. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the document dated 27-3-1998 does not require any registration. The order passed by the trial Court is therefore liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. 9. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. The Court below is directed to admit the document dated 27-3-1978 subject to proof and relevance.