IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.3096 of 2011 Between: K. Sadananda Reddy .. Petitioner AND Gouni Shashirekha and others .. Respondents ORDER: The civil revision petition is directed against the docket order, dated 10-06-2011 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy in O.S. No.45 of 2008 on his file, by which private sale agreement, dated 06-07-1981 was held to be inadmissible in evidence. 2. The impugned order referred to the objection by the learned counsel for the plaintiff objecting to the marking of private sale agreement, dated 06-07-1981, as it was unstamped and unregistered, but being relied on to establish title. The impugned order referred to Ranga Reddy v. S. Padmamma (2002(6) ALD 752) relied on by the learned counsel for the plaintiff and V. Laxmamma v. P. Narsi Reddy (2010(3) ALD 382) relied on by the learned counsel for the defendants and opined that the document cannot be marked. 3. The 4th defendant filed the present revision contending that the trial Court erred in not taking the receipt, dated 06-07-1981 into account, under which the property was sold by the husband of M. Pentamma. The mother of Pentamma also signed in the receipt and the 4th defendant also paid the stamp duty directed to be paid by the trial Court on 30-03-2011. Based on the sale deed dated 06-07-1981, pattedar pass books and title deeds were obtained from the Mandal Revenue Officer long back and hence, he desired the order to be reversed. 4. Smt. K.V. Rajasree, learned counsel for the revision petitioner is heard. 5. The xerox copy of the document, dated 06-07-1981 shows that the executant signed on a revenue stamp of 20 paise, while it was attested by four witnesses and was also signed by the scribe. The document was styled as an agreement and document of sale of land. The document recited Ac.0.05 guntas of land being sold for a consideration of Rs.1,000/- and being delivered possession under the document. It was specifically stated that the document executed with the consent of the executant was a document of sale of land. Separate receipt for receipt of Rs.1,000/- by the executant was also executed with the same attestors and scribe with the executant signing on a 20 paise revenue stamp. The 4th defendant, who adopted the written statement of defendants 1 to 3, wanted to mark the document during the evidence styling it as a private sale agreement. 6. In this connection, the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in A. Kishore @ Kantha Rao v. G. Srinivasulu[1] was relied on by the revision petitioner, in which it was held that even an unregistered sale deed can be taken into consideration in terms of the Proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act for the purpose of establishing possession and nature of possession. The precedents referred to by the Division Bench were stated to have laid down that the terms of the lease/sale would be the primary purpose and possession and nature of possession would be the collateral purpose. Therefore, it was clear even from the decision of the Division Bench that the admissibility of such an unregistered document is only for a collateral purpose like possession or nature of possession but not to prove the terms of the document itself. In fact, the Division Bench itself positively stated that such deeds cannot be used for purpose of providing (proving ?) the terms of transaction or the transaction itself. 7. Smt. K.V. Rajasree, learned counsel also relied on Habib Dar v. Mst. Zoona Bibi[2], wherein also a revision was entertained on the plea of a party to use a document to prove the admission of the executant about receiving the money. The learned Judge observed that some portions of an unregistered document may be admissible in evidence notwithstanding the same being not registered and some other portions may be completely inadmissible. Either these two decisions or the decisions referred to in the impugned order make it clear that a document, which ought to have been registered and not registered, may be admitted in evidence for a collateral purpose and not a primary purpose. 8. In the present case, the claim of the 4th defendant as per the written statement adopted by him is about a sale deed being executed in favour of the 4th defendant who since then is in exclusive possession as owner and possessor and who also got the transaction regularized with the Mandal Revenue Officer. It is, thus, clear that the basis for the defence is the purchase under the document dated 06-07-1981 and even if the 4th defendant has paid any stamp duty and penalty in respect of the document, the prohibition under Section 49 of the Registration Act in respect of unregistered documents, which ought to have been compulsorily registered, still operates and the document could have been admitted only for a collateral purpose. When the opinion of the trial Judge that the document is being attempted to be admitted into evidence for primary purpose to prove the sale and the terms of the sale under the document, dated 06-07-1981 is not shown to be not on a correct factual premise in view of the contentions of the parties in their pleadings and evidence, the refusal of the trial Court to mark the document in evidence cannot be considered to be vitiated. As the document is sought to be tendered in evidence for a primary purpose, the order of the trial Court cannot be interfered with. 9. Accordingly, the civil revision petition should fail and is dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 14-10-2011 Svv [1] 2004 (3) ALD 817 (DB) [2] AIR 1965 JAMMU AND KASHMIR 48