IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE NINTH (9TH) DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.379 of 2009 Between: P. Devarajula Reddy … Petitioner And: K Munichandra Reddy & another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.379 of 2009 ORDER: This revision petition is directed against the order dated 17.11.2008 in OS No.194 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, wherein, the trial Court held that the unregistered agreement of sale dated 27.04.2004 produced by the defendant through the evidence of DW.2 is admissible in evidence. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner herein filed suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 01.05.2004 for a direction to the defendants to execute a regular registered sale deed after receiving balance sale consideration of Rs.60,500/-. During the course of trial, the respondents/defendants sought to produce an unregistered agreement of sale dated 27.04.2004, for which the plaintiff raised objection on the ground that it was unregistered document and it requires compulsory registration. The trial Court over-ruled the objection and permitted marking of the document holding that the unregistered agreement of sale is admissible in evidence and can be taken into consideration in a suit for specific performance, following the decisions of this Court in 2007(2) CCC P. 175 AP; AIR 2005 AP P.185; and 2004(6) ALT P.217. 4. Section 17 of the Registration Act makes certain documents compulsorily registerable. Section 49 of the Registration Act contains a proviso, which is in the nature of an exception to Section 17 and it states that ‘an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance, or as evidence of part performance of a contract for the purposes of section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument’. In respect of three types of transactions referred to in the said proviso an unregistered document can be received as evidence notwithstanding the fact that the document has not been registered. 5. In the present case, the document dated 27.04.2004 is an agreement of sale and the same is sought to be exhibited as evidence of contract in a suit for specific performance. The impugned order upholding the admissibility of the document in evidence notwithstanding that it is unregistered, does not call for any interference by this Court in view of the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act. 6. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 09.06.2011 bss