IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD (23RD) DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4841 of 2009 Between: Makineni Venkateswarlu … Petitioner And: Makineni Venkata Narasimham & others … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4841 of 2009 ORDER: This revision petition is directed against the order dated 27.07.2009 in OS No.52 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, wherein, the objection raised by the plaintiff for marking the receipt dated 16.04.1971 endorsed on the mortgage deed dated 11.04.1963 was over ruled and the agreement of sale dated 11.04.1969, was directed to be sent to the District Registrar for the purpose of impounding on the ground of want of stamp duty and registration. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The plaintiff filed suit for partition of the plaint schedule properties into four equal shares and for separate possession for one such share and mesne profits. The defendant filed written statement, contesting the suit. During the course of trial, in the evidence of DW.1, two documents i.e., agreement of sale dated 11.04.1969 and endorsement of payment dated 16.04.1971 on the mortgage deed dated 11.04.1963 were sought to be exhibited. The plaintiff filed memo objecting for marking of those documents on the ground that they are inadmissible for want of stamp and registration. According to the plaintiff, the document dated 11.04.1969 is not agreement of sale, but it is sale deed itself and requires stamp duty and penalty. The plaintiff further contended that the document dated 16.04.1971 purports to extinguish the rights in the immoveable property and therefore, requires registration. 4. According to the defendant, under the document dated 11.04.1969 only part of the sale consideration was paid in a sum of Rs.8,000/- and balance of sale price of Rs.20,000/- was to be paid by first defendant to one Venkata Subbamma, in whose favour there is a mortgage and therefore, the document was only an agreement of sale, which contemplated fulfillment of certain obligations on a future date. 5. A perusal of the recitals in the document dated 11.04.69 would disclose that balance sale consideration of Rs.20,000/- was to be paid by discharging the mortgage debt. However, as the possession of the property was delivered to the vendor under the agreement of sale, the document has to be considered as sale deed as per Section 47-A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, the document was therefore, rightly ordered to be sent to the Stamp Collector for impounding. 6. Insofar as the other document dated 16.04.1971 is concerned, it is only an endorsement of receipt incorporated on the mortgage deed dated 11.04.1963. The said document recites that a sum of Rs.28,160/- was received towards mortgaged property including interest towards full and final consideration as against the mortgage debt of Rs.20,000/-. 7. A perusal of the contents of the said document would disclose that it is nothing but an acknowledgement of receipt of an amount of Rs.28,160/- being principal and interest due under the mortgage. Admittedly, the mortgage was without possession. There is nothing in the recitals of the document indicating that any rights in the immoveable property stood extinguished. The document dated 11.04.1969 being a simple mortgage deed without possession and the document dated 16.04.1971 is only a receipt endorsed on the mortgage deed for payment of the principal and interest, there is no extinguishment of any rights or interest in the immoveable property under the said document and the same does not therefore fall within the ambit of Schedule 46(A) or (C) of the Stamp Act. 8. Section 46(A) of the Stamp Act deals with any instrument where under a person renounces a claim in favour of another person or against any specified property. Section 46(C) deals with release of right of redemption of a mortgage with possession or of the right to obtain re-conveyance of property already conveyed. The document dated 16.04.1971 does not fall within the ambit of either of the above provisions. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision in ‘Doraiswami Chetti vs. Vachani Mudaliar[1]’ wherein it was held that ‘where moneys are paid by the mortgagor to the mortgagee and the receipts which are taken purport to put an end to the mortgage rights, the receipts are compulsorily registrable under Clause (1) of Section 17 of the Registration Act and they do not come within the exception contained in Clause 2(xi) of Section 17 of the Act. 10. In ‘Vempada Vemulamma vs. Pallanti Satyavathi[2]’, this Court held that ‘the extinguishment of the debt is different from extinguishment of right or interest in the property. Unless there is an express recital that the mortgage is extinguished or the mortgage property is redeemed it is covered by the exception to Section 17(2)(xii).’ It is further held that ‘a receipt containing a mere recital as to the payment of money without any reference to property cannot be held to be compulsorily registerable’. Thus, there is subtle distinction between putting an end to the mortgage rights with reference to the property and mere extinguishment of debt. If it is a case of mere extinguishment of debt, the document does not require registration. It requires registration only when the recitals are to the effect that the mortgage rights in respect of the mortgaged property are extinguished. It therefore depends on the construction of the document as to whether the recitals therein merely put an end to the debt or they seek to extinguish rights of mortgage in the property. The document in question merely recites payment of principal and interest due in a sum of Rs.28,160/- and nothing more. The document dated 11.04.1971 is therefore a mere receipt for payment of the said amount endorsed on the mortgage deed and hence, the same does not require registration. The objection raised by the petitioner/plaintiff against marking of the said document, was rightly over-ruled by the trial Court. In the circumstances, it is held that the impugned order does not call for any interference by this court. 11. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. The interim stay granted earlier stands vacated. No order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 23.02.2011 bss [1] AIR 1955 Madras 601 [2] 1988(2) ALT.433