Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 496 (AP)

Sanjana Enterprises v. Ginni Steels

2009-07-24

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2009
Judgment :- The respondent filed O.S.No.57 of 2001 in the Court of I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad against the petitioners for recovery of about Rs.10,00,000/- on the strength of a khata said to be existing between the parties. The trial of the suit commenced. During the course of his evidence, the respondent intended to rely upon a document dated 16.08.2001, through which the petitioners are said to have acknowledged the debt and provided for the arrangement to claim the same in the event of default. The petitioners raised an objection as to the admissibility of the document. The objection was sustained. Thereupon, the respondent filed C.R.P.No.3215 of 2007 before this Court. The C.R.P. was allowed on 21.09.2007 and the trial Court was directed to pass a reasoned order. It is in this context that the trial Court passed an order, dated 07.03.2008 after hearing both the parties. The learned Judge took the view that the document is more of an acknowledgment than of any other character and accordingly it is admissible in evidence. The same is challenged in this civil revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a clear recital in the document to the effect that in case the petitioners commit default, it shall be open to the respondent to sell the property and to adjust the sale proceeds and in that view of the matter, it was liable to registered. According to him, the document cannot be received in evidence since it was not registered. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that the document does not fit into any characteristic of transfers provided for under the Transfer of Property Act and as such, it is not liable to be registered. He contends that the object of the document is only acknowledging the existing debt and indicating the measures for clearance thereof. The basis for the respondent to file the suit against the petitioners is a khata. Apart from that evidence, he intended to rely upon a document, dated 16.08.2001 said to have been executed by the second petitioner. It reads as under: "It is hereby committed that I am to pay Rs.Eleven lakhs twenty two thousands (11,22,000/-) to Sh.Tarun Gupta of Ginni Steels, 2803 Minister Road, Rani Gunj, Secunderabad-500003 out of which on date of cash of Rs. It reads as under: "It is hereby committed that I am to pay Rs.Eleven lakhs twenty two thousands (11,22,000/-) to Sh.Tarun Gupta of Ginni Steels, 2803 Minister Road, Rani Gunj, Secunderabad-500003 out of which on date of cash of Rs. Forty thousands (40,000/-) along with documents of my plot registered name No.692,693 out of survey No.547, 548, 552, 571 and 572 situated at Pakalakunta, Alwal Village, Malkajgiri (M), R.R.Dsitrict delivered. Once I clear all the payment due by me the land documents will be taken back by me. If I fail to clear the amount my land may be disposed of and you shall be at liberty to adjust the sum realized towards the payment due from me within three days. I hereby undertake to clear all the dues with in fifteen days." The document contains two parts. The first is acknowledgment of debt for a sum of Rs.11,22,000/- and the second comprises of an undertaking on the part of the executant of the document agreeing to sell the property in the survey numbers mentioned in it and adjustment of the sale proceeds towards the amount due, in case it is not paid as agreed. Neither of the components fits into the type of transactions provided for under the Transfer of Property Act or those covered under Section 17 of the Registration Act. Therefore, the petitioners cannot insist that the document cannot be received in evidence unless it is registered. Assuming that the document is liable to be registered, the limited context, in which it is relied upon, is to prove the debt. To that extent, it is a collateral purpose. Therefore, the objection raised by the petitioners cannot be sustained. The trial Court had taken the correct view of the matter and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. Since the disposal of the suit has already been delayed, the trial Court shall endeavour to dispose of the same as early as possible. There shall be no order as to costs.