Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 368 (AP)

U. Madan Gopal v. M. Sudhakar

2010-04-29

GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA

body2010
JUDGMENT : 1. This revision is directed against the order dated 31.12.2009 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy, Mahaboobnagar District in I.A.No.1011 of 2009 in O.S.No.70 of 2007 whereby the petition filed under Section 151 CPC to adjudicate the admissibility of an agreement of sale dated 23.09.2002 was dismissed. 2. Facts in brief are that revision petitioner is the defendant in the suit before the court below. The suit is coming up for trial and the plaintiff who is the Respondent herein filed his Chief examination affidavit wherein certain documents are coming up for marking as Exs.A.1 to A.6. At that stage the revision Petitioner who is the defendant filed the above application stating that the suit document is not to be admitted in evidence because of its non registration as per law as the said document prescribes that the entire amount has been received and possession was also delivered and since it is still an unregistered document though stamp duty and penalty as required under Article 47 of the Act is paid on it. Hence the said Ex.A.1 is not to be admitted either in the capacity of sale deed or in the capacity of sale agreement in the suit even for collateral purpose. 3. The Respondent filed counter stating that the petition is not maintainable and that in view of the words ‘delivery of possession’ occurred in the document, stamp duty was collected by the authorities treating it as sale. Even then it is only a contract of sale but not a completed sale as alleged by the Petitioner. Further Section 17(1)(g) of Registration Act as substituted by A.P. Act No.4 of 1999 is no way hurdle to receive the said document for the purpose of evidence of a contract, in view of the proviso to Section 49 (C) of the Registration Act. Hence the Petition is devoid of any merit and the said document is to be marked as an exhibit and is to be admitted in evidence. 4. As stated supra, the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the petition holding that the suit document is not compulsorily registerable under Section 17 of the Registration Act. Hence the present revision. 5. Heard both sides. 6. 4. As stated supra, the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the petition holding that the suit document is not compulsorily registerable under Section 17 of the Registration Act. Hence the present revision. 5. Heard both sides. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the court below failed to consider the effect of Section 17 (1) (g) of the Indian Registration Act, which categorically mandates that the agreement of sale of immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, is compulsorily registerable. He further contended that since under the document, possession was delivered and the entire consideration was paid the document is compulsorily registerable. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Respondent contended that in view of the recitals of the document that the defendant has to execute another document at the Registrar’s office, the transaction is not complete and hence the document is not compulsorily a registerable document. In support of the said contention he relied on the ratio in Dadi Reddy Sivanarayana Reddy Vs. Kasi Reddy Chinnamma 2001 (1) ALT 524 . 8. I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent. Though the District Collector for the purpose of stamp duty and penalty though treated Ex.A.1 in the present case as a sale deed, conveyance cannot be made under an unregistered sale deed under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. The recitals of the document on hand clearly show that the defendant undertook to execute a separate document at the instance of the plaintiff, though he received the entire consideration and delivered possession of the property to the plaintiff. 9. As per Section 17 (2) (v) of the Registration Act when a document creates right, title or interest in one party and extinguishes any right, title or interest in the other party, then only it is registerable. 10. In Dadi Reddy Sivanarayana Reddy case (1 supra) this court has categorically held that when there is a description in agreement of sale that the vendor shall execute another document at the office of the Sub Registrar as and when required, it is an indication that the document by itself did not conclusively extinguish the right in vendor and therefore by virtue of proviso to Section 49 the said document does not require registration. 11. 11. In the present case also though the entire consideration was paid and possession was delivered, the defendant undertook to execute another document in favour of the plaintiff at his instance. In the light of this compelling circumstance, the clause that the defendant sold the property to be enjoyed by the plaintiff does not conclusively extinguish the right in defendant and hence does not require registration. 12. In the light of the above discussion, I see no irregularity much less any illegality in the order impugned in this revision and hence the revision is accordingly dismissed. No costs.