Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 379 (AP)

Vanka Kodanda Rami Reddy v. Byreddi Sreenivasulu

2024-03-20

R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

body2024
ORDER : R. Raghunandan Rao, J. 1. The 1st respondent herein filed O.S. No. 310 of 2008 before the Court of Learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle for declaration of his right and title over the suit schedule property which consisted of two parts, delineated as "ABHFG" and "HFEC" to the plaint sketch, and for a consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants, including the petitioner herein, from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the property by the first respondent. 2. The 1st respondent is said to have based his case on the ground that the 1st respondent had purchased these properties from the defendants in the suit which includes the petitioner herein. It is the case of the 1st respondent that he had purchased one property under a registered deed of sale dated 23.06.2001 and a second property under a registered deed of sale dated 18.08.2004. The 1st respondent also claimed that for the purpose of better description of the property, an agreement was executed by the petitioner herein in favour of the 1st respondent on 23.06.2001 in relation to the property sold under the registered deed of sale dated 23.06 2001. Similarly, an agreement was also said to have been executed on 18.08.2004 in relation to the registered deed of sale dated 18.08.2004. It may also be mentioned that these two agreements are unregistered and are nominally stamped. 3. The petitioner herein denied execution of these two unregistered nominally stamped agreements and objected to the marking of these two documents, in the course of trial, when the first respondent sought to mark these two documents as Exhibits A2 and A4. The Trial Judge had overruled the objections raised by the petitioner and permitted the said documents to be marked. 4. Aggrieved by the said rejection of objections filed by him, the petitioner has moved this Court by way of the present Civil Revision Petition. 5. Sri N. Pramod, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that both Exhibits A2 and A4 are instruments which have the effect of creating rights over the immovable property and as such require registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act and would also attract the stamp duty payable on a conveyance. 6. 5. Sri N. Pramod, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that both Exhibits A2 and A4 are instruments which have the effect of creating rights over the immovable property and as such require registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act and would also attract the stamp duty payable on a conveyance. 6. Sri S.S. Bhatt, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent would contend that the documents in question are not conveyances and are only agreements which have been executed for the purposes of better description of the property which has already been conveyed to the 1st respondent. He would submit that the actual transfer of the land was done under the registered deeds of sale and the subsequent agreements were only for the purpose of better description of the property and there has been no additional right or title created in favour of the 1st respondent by virtue of the execution of the said agreements which have now been marked as Exhibits A2 to and A4. He would also contend that these are documents which are only being used for collateral purpose of demonstrating the dimensions of the property which have been purchased by the 1st respondent and as such Section 17 of the Registration Act, even if the documents are to be considered as conveyances, would not be applicable. He relies upon the Judgments of M/s. Paul Rubber Industries Private Limited vs. Amit Chand Mitra & anr., 2023 AIR (SC) 4658 and J. Thirukumaran vs. District collector, Kancheepuram District LAWS (MAD)-2011-6-160 of a learned Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras. 7. Sri N. Promod, learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar Roy vs. Bhowra Kankanee Collieries Ltd., and Ors., 1970 INSC 251 : (1970) 3 SCC 565 (para-3) would contend that any rectification of a registered document can be done only by way of a separate registered document. The observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard are as follows: 3. Mr B. Sen for the appellant sought to raise the question about the admissibility of Ex. A-4 for want of registration. In the first place this contention cannot be entertained so long as the finding of the High Court on the only point which was canvassed before it about the reduction of the rate of royalty is not set aside. Mr B. Sen for the appellant sought to raise the question about the admissibility of Ex. A-4 for want of registration. In the first place this contention cannot be entertained so long as the finding of the High Court on the only point which was canvassed before it about the reduction of the rate of royalty is not set aside. The High Court had held after an examination of the evidence that it had not been proved that there was any change in the market condition in July or in December 1953, to call for a reduction in the rate of royalty or that there was any mutual arrangement or agreement between the lessor or the lessee for such a reduction which was to become effective from July 1952. No attempt was made by Mr Sen to persuade us to reverse this conclusion. Even on the assumption that a mutual arrangement or agreement as evidenced by Ex. A-4 was arrived at between the appellant and the Eastern Coal Co. Ltd., we are unable to agree that any reduction in the rate of royalty could have been effected by means of Ex A-4 which had not been registered under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. It is well-settled by now that a document which varies the essential terms of the existing registered lease, such as the amount of rent, must be registered: See Durga Prasad Singh v. Rajendra Narain Bagchi, [ ILR 37 Cal 293 : 10 CLJ 570 : 4 IC 713] which was approved by the Full Bench in Lalit Mohan Ghosh v. Gopal Chuck Coal Company Ltd. [ ILR 39 Cal 284 : 16 CWN 55 : 12 IC 723 : 14 CLJ 411] The decision of the Madras High Court in Obai Goundan v. Ramalinga Ayyar [ ILR 22 Mad 217 : 8 MLJ 256] taking a contrary view has not been followed by the High Courts in India and the consistent view that has been taken is that registration of an agreement is necessary which reduces the rent of an existing registered lease. (See Mulla on Indian Registration Act, 7th Edn., pp. 75-76.) 8. Sri S.S. Bhatt, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent would submit that the said documents do not in any manner rectify or change anything recorded in Exs.A.1 and A.3. He would submit that in such circumstances, registration is not necessary. (See Mulla on Indian Registration Act, 7th Edn., pp. 75-76.) 8. Sri S.S. Bhatt, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent would submit that the said documents do not in any manner rectify or change anything recorded in Exs.A.1 and A.3. He would submit that in such circumstances, registration is not necessary. He would also submit that even if the said documents are required to be registered, the same would not be a bar for marking of the documents, as Exs.A2 and A4 are being produced for collateral purpose of demonstrating the dimensions of the plots of land in question. Consideration of the Court: 9. Section 17 of the Registration Act stipulates the documents whose registration is compulsory. Section 17(1)(b) of the Act, which reads as follows, is the relevant provision: "Section 17(1)(b) other non-testamentary instruments which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property." 10. The term "instrument" is again defined in Section 2(14) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, in the following manner: "Section 2(14): "Instrument":--"Instrument" includes every document by which any right or liability is, or purports to be, created, transferred, limited, extended, extinguished or recorded." 11. Apart from this, the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 requires appropriate stamp to be affixed on documents. The quantum of stamp is determined on the basis of the entries made in Schedule-IA of the Indian Stamp Act. 12. In the circumstances, the question before this Court would be the nature of the document and its place in Schedule-IA of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and whether the said document is an instrument which creates any rights. 13. Exs.A1 and A3 are deeds of sale, which are admittedly, properly stamped and registered. Exs.A2 and A4 are said to be documents, styled as agreements, executed, for clarificatory purposes, to set out the dimensions which had been missed out in the corresponding registered deeds of sale. 14. The recitals in these two documents are to the effect that the documents are being executed to fill the lacunae in missing out the dimensions of the property sold under the registered deeds of sale. These recitals control the ambit and effect of these documents and make them subservient to the main documents. 14. The recitals in these two documents are to the effect that the documents are being executed to fill the lacunae in missing out the dimensions of the property sold under the registered deeds of sale. These recitals control the ambit and effect of these documents and make them subservient to the main documents. They do not create any right or interest in the property to the respondent, beyond the right and title transferred to the respondent, under Exs.A.1 and A.3. The documents cannot be treated as instruments or conveyances creating any additional rights in the respondent. Accordingly, they would not require to be registered nor attract stamp duty payable on conveyances. 15. In view of the above, the civil revision petition is dismissed. However, this order shall not preclude the petitioner from assailing the admissibility and proof of the document on any other grounds, including the plea that the documents are fabrications and not executed by the petitioner or any of the other vendors of the respondent. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.