Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 244 (AP)

Datla Rama Krishnam Raju v. Datla Surya Venkata Vijaya Gopala Raju

2025-02-07

TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

body2025
ORDER : TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO, J. The sole respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.450 of 2017 on the file of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, filed for declaration of title and for consequential relief. 2. The petitioners herein, who are the defendants in the said suit, filed I.A.No.431 of 2022 under Order VIII Rule 1(3) instead of Order VIII R-1A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, on the ground that the 1 st petitioner herein-1 st defendant in the suit has purchased an extent of 350 square yards which includes plaint schedule property from the mother of 1 st plaintiff and other family members of plaintiff-respondent herein under the unregistered sale deed dated 18.08.2008 and the said document is essential to prove his case and also he could not file the said original unregistered sale deed before the Court along with written statement, as it was mixed with other documents and the said document was traced few days back and the said unregistered sale deed is an important document to prove his case. 3. Denying the contentions made in the affidavit filed in support of the application, the respondent herein-plaintiff filed counter asserting that the said document cannot be received in evidence even for collateral purpose also on the ground that it is an unregistered sale deed and it is compulsory registrable document and the said document is created by the defendants for the purpose of defending the suit and to grab the suit schedule property and, therefore, prayed not to allow I.A.No.431 of 2022 to receive document. Hence, prayed to dismiss the interlocutory application. 4. Hence, prayed to dismiss the interlocutory application. 4. On analysing the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides and after considering the judgments cited both sides, the trial Court has dismissed the said interlocutory application on the ground that the petitioners herein-defendants have not assigned any valid and sufficient reasons for non-filing of said document along with written statement and the interlocutory application is filed with wrong provision and the unregistered sale deed dated 18.08.2008 is an incompleted document and also it cannot be received to tender evidence on behalf of the petitioners-defendants as it is required to fulfil the conditions deficit of stamp duty coupled with registration under Section 17 of the REGISTRATION ACT and the petitioners-defendants have an option and would be admissible as evidence in a suit for specific performance, but not for the suit for declaration and, accordingly, dismissed the I.A.No.431 of 2022 in O.S.No.450 of 2017, vide order dated 27.09.2024. 5. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the said order dated 27.09.2024 passed in I.A.NO.431 of 2022 on the ground that the Court below has committed a grave error in dismissing the application filed under Section 38(2) of the Indian STAMP ACT seeking a direction to send the unregistered sale deed for impounding to the District Registrar in the suit for levying stamp duty; the Court below committed error in dismissing the application for impounding the document without regard to the law laid down by the High Court in 2020(1) ALD 162 ; non- registration of document is not germane for deciding the issue involved in the present application; and the order of the trial Court is perverse, but also runs counter to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Hence, prayed to set aside the impugned order dated 27.09.2024 in I.A.No.431 of 2022 in O.S.No.450 of 2017. 6. Now the point that arises for consideration is, whether the impugned order dated 27.09.2024 in I.A.No.431 of 2022 in O.S.No.450 of 2017 on the file of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge at Vizianagaram, is liable to be set aside or not? 7. The quoting of wrong provision is not ground either to allow or dismiss the petition. 8. 6. Now the point that arises for consideration is, whether the impugned order dated 27.09.2024 in I.A.No.431 of 2022 in O.S.No.450 of 2017 on the file of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge at Vizianagaram, is liable to be set aside or not? 7. The quoting of wrong provision is not ground either to allow or dismiss the petition. 8. Learned counsel for petitioners/defendants contended that the impugned order is contrary to law; that the document in question is a un-registered sale deed and an application is filed to send the document for impounding by the trial Court to the Revenue Divisional Officer for collecting of penalty; therefore, under Section 35 (a) of the Indian STAMP ACT , 1899, it is admissible in evidence and the trial Court ought not to have refused to receive the document and relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in a case Chilakuri Gangulappa Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer Madanapalle and another , [ (2001) 4 SCC 197 ] . In the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court, it was dealt with the procedure for impounding under Section 47-A of the STAMP ACT , 1899 and the document impounded is agreement of sale. 9. In another judgement Parchuri Sireesha and another Challapalli Jalaja , [ 2020 (1) ALD 162 (AP)] , the purport of the judgment is that merely because of sending the documents for collection of stamp duty will not amount to validate the document. Refuse to send the document when a request was made by a party, Court has no option, but to pass order according permission for payment and collection of deficit stamp duty and penalty on instrument/document in question. 10. The Judgments relied by the petitioners-defendants is not applicable to the facts of this case as the document therein is “an agreement of sale” that is sought to be impounded as no right transfer to the other party in an agreement of sale. But in the case on hand, the petitioners/defendants are seeking to impound the sale deed, which is unregistered, where the right transfers. "Sale” is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised. Such transfer, in the case of tangible immoveable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, can be made only by a registered instrument. "Sale” is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised. Such transfer, in the case of tangible immoveable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, can be made only by a registered instrument. By impounding the document by paying stamp duty and penalty, it would not automatically make the document admissible in evidence, as the sale deed is compulsory registrable document, if the document is required to be registered, an unregistered sale deed cannot be impounded with stamp duty and it cannot be received in evidence that the unregistered sale deed cannot be relied upon for sale purpose. 11. In Golla Dharmanna Vs. Sakari Poshetty and others , [ (2013) 5 ALD 490 ] , a learned Single Judge of composite High Court held in the following: “I am also unable to accept the contention of the counsel for petitioner that because the requisite stamp duty and penalty has been paid by petitioner, in view of Section 35 (a) of the Indian STAMP ACT , 1899, the said document should have been admitted in evidence by the Trial Court. This contention of the petitioner is misconceived because an objection as to the admissibility of a document on the ground that it is not stamped or not properly stamped in accordance with provisions of the Indian STAMP ACT , 1899, is different fundamentally from an objection to the admissibility of a document on the ground that it is unregistered. Merely because stamp duty and penalty have been paid and the provisions of the Indian STAMP ACT , 1899, have been complied with, it would not automatically make the said document admissible in evidence, if as per law, the said document is also required to be registered.” 12. In M/s. K.B.Saha and Sons Pvt. Ltd Vs. M/s. Development Consultant Ltd , [ (2008) 8 SCC 564 ] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the effect of Section 17 (1)(b) of the REGISTRATION ACT , 1908. In the case of a lease, Rana Vidya Bhushan Singh Vs. Ratiram , (1969) 1 UJ 86 SC = (1969) 1 SCWR 341, and in paragraph-34, the Hon’ble Supreme Court deduced the following principles: "From the principles laid down in the various decisions of this Court and the High Courts, as referred to hereinabove, it is evident that :- 1. In the case of a lease, Rana Vidya Bhushan Singh Vs. Ratiram , (1969) 1 UJ 86 SC = (1969) 1 SCWR 341, and in paragraph-34, the Hon’ble Supreme Court deduced the following principles: "From the principles laid down in the various decisions of this Court and the High Courts, as referred to hereinabove, it is evident that :- 1. A document required to be registered is not admissible into evidence under Section 49 of the REGISTRATION ACT . 2. Such unregistered document can however be used as an evidence of collateral purpose as provided in the Proviso to Section 49 of the REGISTRATION ACT . 3. A collateral transaction must be independent of, or divisible from, the transaction to effect which the law required registration. 4. A collateral transaction must be a transaction not itself required to be effected by a registered document, that is, a transaction creating, etc, any right, title or interest in immoveable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards. 5. If a document is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration, none of its terms can be admitted in evidence and that to use a document for the purpose of proving an important clause would not be using it as a collateral purpose." 13. As held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the K.B.Saha’s case (supra 4), when a document is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration, none of its terms can be admitted in evidence and that to use a document for the purpose of proving an important clause would not be using it as a collateral purpose. In view of the judgment in K.B.Saha’s case (referred supra 4) that the trial Court had rightly refused to admit the document filed by petitioners/defendants on the ground that it was not registered under the provisions of the Indian REGISTRATION ACT , 1908. The judgements relied by the petitioners/defendants are not regarding to the document of un-registered sale deed. In the present case, this Court is of the opinion that the learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the application filed to receive the documents under Order 8 R-1A(3) of C.P.C. 14. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. However, no costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in this case shall stand closed.