V. Venkatareddy vs K. Mangamma

Y.V. Narayana, J.—The defendant in the suit O.S. No. 370 of 88 on the file of the Prl. Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada filed this revision petition against the order dated 20-7-1993 on the Memo filed by the plaintiff.

The brief facts leading to filing of this revision petition are: The defendant-petitioner herein wanted to rely on an agreement of sale dated 10-6-1967 said to have been executed by the plaintiff-respondent and her daughter in favour of the defendant and wants to get the said document to be marked on his side. At that stage the plaintiff filed a memo stating that the document was never executed by the plaintiff and her daughter; that it is a fabricated one and that it is not genuine and valid. She also challenged the admissibility of the said deed on the ground that it was an unregistered one conferring and extinguishing the rights in the immovable property and that the said deed seems to be an instrument of transfer of right, title or interest in the immovable property, it cannot be marked and looked into as it is not registered. The defendant filed objections to the said memo stating that the document does not contravene the provisions of the Indian Registration Act; that the document was not styled as agreement of sale; that it contemplates the execution of a proper sale deed; that it is a genuine one.

The Court below, after hearing the arguments of the Counsel for both sides, came to the conclusion that the recitals of the document attract the ingredients of Sections 17(1) and 49 of the Registration Act and that the document has to be compulsorily registered and as the document was not registered, he rejected the document for want of registration and allowed the memo. Against that the present revision is filed.

The point for consideration is: Whether the agreement of sale dated 10-6-1967 is liable for registration and whether it is admissible in evidence under the Registration Act?

The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the document dated 10-6-1967 which is sought to be admitted, is merely an agreement of sale and not an out-right sale deed; that the Court below is not right in holding that it is an out-right sale deed and it requires registration u/s 17(1)(b) and Section 49 of the Registration Act XVI of 1908. In support of his contention he relied on the decision reported in T. Gurappa v. Naidu Ramana Reddy 1993(1) ALT 225 and submitted that the Court below erred in not following the decision, which clearly held that the disputed document in that case is only an agreement of sale, but not an out-right sale deed. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on the decision reported in K. Sarojamma v. G. Muni Lashamma and Ors., 1981 Law Summary 265. That case also deals with Sections 17(1) and 49 of the Registration Act. The learned Judge (Seetharam Reddy, J.), placing reliance on the judgment in C.R.P. No. 2268 of 1976 dated 3-10-1977 rendered by A.V. Krishna Rao, J., held that the document reciting giving of possession of property and the party agreeing to execute a deed of conveyance amounts to an agreement of sale and not an out-right sale deed. In arriving at that conclusion, the learned Judge also placed reliance on the decision reported in Ramachandra Naidu and Another Vs. Ramayya Naidu, . In that case there is a clear recital in the deed similar to the recital in the present disputed deed that "Therefore whenever you desire, either in your favour or in favour of your nominee, a proper registration would be effected". It also contains a recital that the vendee could enjoy the property with full control

It is further contended by the learned Counsel that the disputed document is protected by the provisions of Section 17(2)(v) of the Registration Act and does not require registration. In support of his contention he also relied on the decisions reported in Shyam Sunder and Others Vs. Siya Ram and Another, and Venkata Subbaiah v. Venkata Chalamaiah 1961 (2) An.W.R. 284, which are to the same effect.

On the other hand the learned Counsel for the respondent contended that the disputed document is an out-right sale deed and requires registration as per the provisions of Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the decision reported in Lachhman Dass Vs. Ram Lal and Another, , which was not brought to the notice of the learned Judge who rendered the judgment in T. Gurappa''s case (1 supra). In my view the decision of the Supreme Court in Lachhman Dass''s case has no application to the facts of the case on hand. That case deals with an award which requires registration. But in the instant case the document is an agreement of sale only and does not create any title in the vendee and hence it does not require registration, as per the exemption provided in Section 17(2)(v) of the Registration Act. The learned Counsel for the respondent in support of his contention also relied on the decisions reported in Smt. Hamida Vs. Smt. Humer and others, ; P. Gangireddy v. P. Subbareddy 1993(2) APLJ 455 and Ghoushia Bee Vs. Rajan Bee and Another, .

In view of the above, I am of the view that the Court below has committed an error in holding that the document in question though styled as an agreement of sale, it attracts the ingredients of Sections 17(1) and 49 of the Registration Act and requires compulsory registration. Therefore I set aside the impugned order passed by the Court below and allow the C.R.P., but without costs. The Court below is directed to receive the document in evidence and proceed with the case.