THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.4949 of 2009 (Dated : 22-02-2010) Between: Kemidi Venkata Papaiah S/o Gangaiah and another …Revision Petitioners A n d Kemidi Ramulu S/o Beeraiah and others …Respondents/Defendants THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.4949 of 2009 ORDER: Aggrieved by the order dated 18.9.2009 passed in O.S.No.10 of 2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon, the plaintiffs have filed this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.10 of 2009. They filed the suit for declaration of title and consequential injunction in respect of Ac.0-04 guntas in Survey No.947, which is more fully described in the suit schedule. It is their case that the defendants 1 and 2 are the original owners and possessors of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.1-26 guntas including 3/7th share in the suit schedule property whereas the 3rd defendant has 4/7th share in the suit schedule property. All the defendants have sold their respective shares to them by executing documents for a consideration of Rs.1,05,000/-. A regular registered sale deed in favour of the 2nd plaintiff came to be executed by defendants 1 and 2 on 18.6.2002 in respect of Ac.1-22 cents leaving the suit schedule property as the defendants have joint shares. They also purchased the share of the 3rd defendant and obtained a sale deed on 1.5.2006. The plaintiff No.2 mutated her name in APNPDCL against the service connection of the suit schedule property, vide consumer No.109-13901-00192. When the defendant No.3 and his sons tried to dig a bore-well by the side of the suit schedule property, the 2nd plaintiff filed a suit being O.S.No.247 of 2007 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Jangaon for perpetual injunction in respect of agricultural land along with the present suit schedule property and obtained ad interim injunction on 31.10.2007. The interim injunction came to be made absolute in respect of land admeasuring Ac.1-22 guntas while vacating the interim injunction in respect of the present suit schedule property. The plaintiff No.2 filed appeal being C.M.A.No.5 of 2008, which ended in dismissal on 23.9.2008. The defendants 1 to 3 started denying their ownership in respect of the suit schedule property and made efforts to cut the trees existing in the suit schedule property. Hence, they filed the suit seeking the following reliefs:- i) Pass a decree by declaring that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners and possessors of the suit schedule property covered by agricultural open well and its heaps including way to the same apart from its electric motor, starter and water pipes having spread over the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.0-04 gts., which is locally known as “Mahankali Gudi Kadi Bhoomi” and also “Chinathala Pati Meedha Vunna Bhavi” in Survey No.947 situated at Lingalaghanpur village and Revenue and Mandal, Warangal District; ii) Pass a decree of consequential injunction restraining the defendants, their legal heirs, family members, agnates, representatives, servants and workmen etc., from entering into or otherwise interfering in any manner in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit land; iii) Award costs of the suit ; and iv) Grant such other relief or reliefs, which are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the suit. 3. The defendants field written statement disputing the claim of the plaintiffs. At the time of marking documents on behalf of the plaintiffs, the defendants raised an objection regarding the admissibility of two documents, (1) Raseednama dated 3.2.2002 and (2) Agreement dated 1.5.2006. 4. The petitioners-plaintiffs contended before the trial Court that the documents relate to movable property such as electric motor, water pipes and therefore, they are not compulsorily registerable documents. Whereas the defendants contended before the trial Court that the rights in respect of immovable property were sought to be transferred under two documents and the said document being unregistered are inadmissible in evidence. The trial Court upheld the objection raised by the defendants and refused to receive the two documents detailed supra in evidence, by order dated 18.9.2009. The said order is assailed in this revision. 5. For better appreciation, I may refer the relevant portion of the order impugned in the revision, which reads as hereunder:- “ The disputed documents, first document is Rassednama dt.3-2-2002 and second is agreement of sale dt.1-5-2006. First document dt.3-2-2002 with a head note of Rassednama and the document shows that first petitioner, who is first plaintiff purchased the land from Kamidi Veeraswamy, who is second Defendant. Subsequently, there is a note that well, electric motor, water in the well, heaps and trees standing on the land are allotted to purchaser. Pertaining to this aspect, as per A.P.State Amendment in Registration Act, registration of immovable properties is compulsory. As per the decisions cited supra, clear and cogent that these are the immovable properties attached to the land. Second document dt.1-5-2006, executed by 3rd Defendant Kamidi Mallaiah in favour of 2nd plaintiff. As per this document 2nd Plaintiff purchased the share of 3rd defendant in the well, electric motor and water in the well. It shows that both documents are pertaining to immovable properties, as per Section 17(1A) of the Registration Act, the documents containing contracts to transfer for consideration, any immovable property for the purpose of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act shall be registered if they have been executed on or after the commencement of the Registration and Other Related Laws (Amendment) Act, 2001 and if such documents are not registered on or after such commencement, then they shall have no effect for the purposes of the said Section 53A. The amendment took place on 24-9-2001, the first document date is 3-2-2002 and second document date is 1-5-2006. It shows that both documents are after amendment of Registration Act under Section 17(1A). In view of the foregoing reasons, above said two documents are compulsory registerable documents. Though stamp duty paid, both documents are unregistered documents and those documents are liable to be rejected and shall not be marked. Hence, this point is answered accordingly.” 6. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 11.11.2009. The respondent entered appearance through a counsel. 7. When the C.R.P came up for admission hearing, with the consent of counsel appearing for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 8. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners- plaintiffs and learned counsel appearing for the respondents- defendants. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-plaintiffs submits that the two documents are sought to be marked only for collateral purpose, and therefore, there cannot be any impediment to receive the same since stamp duty as well as the penalty has been paid. In support of his submission, reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court in Rayadurgan Pedda Reddeppa (died) v. Rayadurgam Narasimha Reddy [1]. 10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents- defendants submits that the rights over the immovable property have been transferred under the two documents and since they are unregistered, they cannot be received in evidence. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the judgments of this Court in Dr.Rayadurgam Gurappa and another Vs. Chowdam Kondappa[2] and Suryadevara Nagabhushnarao Vs. Suryadevara Ramachadrarao and others[3]. 11. In Rayadurgan Pedda Reddeppa’s case (1 supra), it has been held that document though registrable but not registered can be relied on by a party for collateral purpose of proving his possession and the document is admissible in evidence to that limited extent. 12. Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 reads as hereunder:- 49. Effect of non-registration of documents required to be registered:- No document required by Section 17[ or by any provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882] to be registered shall- (a) affect any immovable property comprised therein, or (b) confer any power to adopt, or (c) be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power, unless it has been registered: [Provided that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by this Act, or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument]. 13. In Sardar Darshan Singh v. Sardar Ram Singh[4], it has been held by this Court as hereunder:- “ A mere perusal of the said proviso shows that an exception is carved out from the rigor of Section 49 which ordains that the document which is required to be registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act shall not be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power unless it has been registered. The exception applies to three categories, namely (i) the document may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance; (ii) as evidence of part performance of a contract for the purpose of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882; and (iii) as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument. In respect of these three categories of transactions, notwithstanding the fact that the document which is required to be registered has not been registered and, therefore, shall not be received as evidence, can be received as evidence.” 14. The 1st document which is styled as Raseednama dt.3-2- 2002 contains a recital that the 2nd defendant conveyed 3/7th share in agricultural open well, electric motor fitted to the well, well area etc., along with the trees existing over the land in their respective occupation. The 2nd document is styled as a sale deed, whereunder the 3rd defendant conveyed his rights over the common well water and trees situated therein in favour of 2nd plaintiff. 15. The plaintiffs apparently intend to mark these documents to speak of their possession over the properties covered therein. It indicates that the petitioners/plaintiffs sought to mark these two documents for collateral purpose. Under proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, the documents, which are compulsorily registerable, but not registered can be admitted in evidence for collateral purpose. Since the plaintiffs paid the stamp duty and penalty under these two documents, they can be admitted in evidence for collateral purpose. The learned trial Court has missed to note the proviso appended to Section 49 of the Registration Act and thereby erred in refusing to mark the above- referred two documents in evidence of the petitioners-plaintiffs. Accordingly, the order impugned in the revision is set aside. Consequently, the petitioners –plaintiffs are permitted to mark the two documents referred supra for collateral purpose only. 16. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.22-02-2010 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.4949 of 2009 (Dated : 22-02-2010) [1] 2006 (6) ALT 292 [2] 2005(5) ALD 381 [3] 2007(2) ALD 1 [4] 2004(4) ALD 735 = 2004(6) ALT 217