Kancherla Jagan Mohan Reddy vs Matta Kavitha

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the orders of the trial Court in I.A. No. 373 of 2021 in OS No. 9 of 2019 dated 22.03.2021.

The petitioner/plaintiff filed an application before the trial Court requesting to permit him to mark agreement of sale dated 21.08.2016 which is an unregistered document as an exhibit as it is very much admissible in evidence.

In a counter filed by the respondents they simply contended that the said document is not admissible in evidence and the petition is not maintainable. The trial Court considering the arguments of both sides held the document sought for is not impounded, deficit stamp duty and penalty is not paid as it is an unregistered document, it is inadmissible in evidence. It can be received in evidence only if the required stamp duty and penalty is paid and it can be used for collateral purpose and accordingly dismissed the said I.A.

Aggrieved by the said order the C.R.P. is preferred in which he stated that he filed O.S. No. 9 of 2018 for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 21.08.2016. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 purchased the suit schedule property under two sale deeds dated 13.08.2016 for a total consideration of Rs.1,25,00,000/-. Petitioner paid Rs.25,00,000/- by three cheques at the time of entering into the agreement and they were duly encashed and also stated he further paid Rs.25,00,000/- to respondent No.1 and thus paid Rs.50,00,000/- in total and the balance sale consideration Rs.75,00,000/- is to be paid. In a written statement filed by defendant No.2 filed the agreement of sale and also receipt of part-payment and defendant No.6 also filed written statement on 08.06.2019. Issues were framed. When the matter is posted for list of the witnesses and chief-affidavit petitioner filed his chief-examination affidavit on 04.02.2021 and sought for marking of the documents. At that stage refused to mark agreement of sale dated 21.08.2016 on the ground that it is not registered, as such he filed I.A. No.373 of 2021 which was also dismissed and the order of the trial Court is illegal. He further stated that as per the Article-6 Clause (A) (iv) of Schedule 1-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, as substituted by Act 21/1995 vide G.O.Ms.No.173, Rev. (Regn.II) dated 31.03.1995.

He further stated that as per Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 unregistered document affecting immovable property may be required as evidence in a suit for specific performance. Though he relied upon the decision reported in 2017 (2) ALT it was brushed aside by the trial Court. The Court relied upon 4 judgments without referred by the respondents and thus requested the order of the trial Court.

Petitioner counsel relied upon a  decision reported in 2008 LF (A) 428 between M. Hari Narayana @ Hari Babu Vs Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, A.P. in which stated as follows :

“From a reading of the Explanation, it is evident that if an agreement evidenced delivery of possession of the property agreed to be sold, it is liable to be charged as a sale deed”.

“There are certain agreements, which contain a recital to the effect that the possession has already been delivered to the purchaser or is being delivered through the agreement itself. In such a case, undoubtedly, the agreement is liable to be charged as if it is a sale deed. There are also agreements, which provide for delivery of possession at a future point of time, be it subject to payment of the balance or any portion of consideration, or on occurrence of any event”.

Admittedly, the petitioner herein filed suit for specific performance of contract and paid part of the consideration. Though written statement were filed by defendant Nos. 2 and 6 in detail they have not taken any objection regarding the admissibility of the document in their written statement only at the time of marking of the document by the Court took an objection, as such he filed an application and the said application was also dismissed on the ground that it is an unregistered agreement of sale as it is not impounded, deficit stamp duty and penalty is not paid, it is not admissible in evidence. But the petitioner herein stated in a suit for specific performance as per the proviso, Section 49 of the Registration Act agreement of sale can be received into evidence without any stamp duty and penalty as it was incorporated on Non-Judicial stamp papers worth of Rs.200/-. The objection regarding the admissibility was not taken at the time of filing of the suit, as such it was not impounded, but the trial Court held that it is not admissible in evidence. The petitioner herein filed suit for specific performance and relied upon the said document. Until and unless the said document is not marked as it is a crucial document by him he cannot proceed with the trial, therefore I feel it reasonable to set aside the order of the trial Court.

In the result, the Civil Revision petition is allowed by setting aside the order in IA No. 373 of 2021 in OS No. 9 of 2018 passed by the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda. No costs.

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed in the light of this final order.