* THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY + CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4439 of 2009 % Dated 01.12.2009 # M.Nagabhushanam, 58 years, S/o.Subramanyam, R/o. 17/288, BKM Street, Kadapa And another …Petitioners V. $ V.Suresh Kumar, S/o.Subbaramaiah, aged 34 years, R/o.8-16-1, Prakash Nagar, Kadapa And another. …Respondents ! Counsel for the petitioner: K.Somakonda Reddy, Advocate ^ Counsel for the Respondents: S.V.Bhatt, Advocate < Gist : > Head Note: ? Cases Referred: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4439 of 2009 BETWEEN: M.Nagabhushanam, 58 years, Resident of BKM Street, Kadapa And another …Petitioners AND V.Suresh Kumar, S/o.Subbaramaiah, 34 years, R/o.Prakash Nagar, Kadapa, Hyderabad And another. …Respondents The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4439 of 2009 ORDER: The 1st respondent filed O.S.No.13 of 2005 in the Court of the Principal District Judge, Kadapa, against the petitioners and the 2nd respondent (for short, ‘the petitioners’), for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale, or in the alternative, for refund of the advance amount with penalty. Pleadings are complete and the trial appears to be in progress. The petitioners filed I.A.No.1672 of 2009 under Order 8 Rule 1(3) of C.P.C., with a prayer to receive the document, an alleged agreement under which, the respondent and another person by name C.Sanjeeva Kumar are said to have stated that the petitioners have executed a sale deed in respect of the property mentioned therein, without receiving the entire consideration, and that the executants have undertaken to pay the balance of consideration, namely Rs.70,21,328/-, within the time stipulated therein. It was also mentioned that in case the amount is not paid as agreed, it shall be open to either party to have the recourse of law. The 1st respondent opposed the I.A. and raised objection to the admissibility of the document. The trial Court undertook discussion as to the admissibility at the threshold itself, and on consideration of the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties. Through its order dated 27.07.2009, the trial Court held that the document requires to be registered in law and since it is not properly stamped and not registered, it cannot be received. The said order is challenged in this Civil Revision Petition. Sri K.Somakonda Reddy, learned counsel for petitioners, submits that the document does not confer any independent right on any party, and as such, it is not required to be registered in law. He submits that the document has only reflected the existing state of affairs and no independent transaction, has taken place through it. Sri S.V.Bhatt, learned counsel for the respondent submits that serious legal consequences flow from the document in question, and since it relates to an item of immovable property, it was required to be registered and duly stamped. He contends that the view expressed by the trial Court does not warrant interference. Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 (‘Registration Act’, for brevity) mandates that, wherever a document creates rights vis-à-vis an item of immovable property, it must be registered. Apart from that, relevant provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, also insist that the transfer of rights or interests in an immovable property by way of sale, gift, exchange or mortgage, shall be only through a registered document. In addition to this, the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, (‘Stamp Act’, for brevity), apart from stipulating the rates of stamp duty on documents of different categories, renders them inadmissible, if the stamp duty is not paid at all, or if the duty, which is already paid, is not adequate. The trial Court has taken note of the relevant principles that apply in this regard. The petitioners intended to make an agreement dated 20.08.2003 as part of record in the suit filed by the 1st respondent for relief of specific performance. The recitals of the said document are somewhat peculiar. By itself, the document did not convey rights in respect of any property, in favour of any one. The document itself makes a mention to a registered sale deed. It is mentioned that the petitioners have agreed to sell an extent of Acs.1.48 cents of land in Survey No.521/2 and 525 of Chemmumiapet village for a consideration of Rs.71,21,328/- to the 1st respondent by executing the agreement of sale, and by reposing confidence in the latter, they have executed the sale deed registered as document No.5683 of 2003 by receiving meager amount and that a sum of Rs.70,28,328/- is to be paid. Through the said agreement, the 1st respondent is said to have undertaken to pay the amount by 28.01.2004 and agreed that if he fails to do so, it shall be open to the petitioners to take such steps, as are open to them in law. It is settled principle of law that in deciding the admissibility of the document, the recitals therein have to be taken on their face value. It is ultimately for the parties to prove the contents thereof by adducing oral and documentary evidence. The 1st respondent did not cite the article of Schedule I A of the Stamp act, into which, the agreement referred to above fits in. It is neither an agreement of sale nor a sale deed. On the other hand, it is preceded by an agreement of sale as well as a sale deed. With the execution of sale deed, the transfer takes place and becomes complete. So is the case with the applicability of Section 17 of the Registration Act. If the transaction of sale has already taken place, the subsequent documents of this nature do not have the effect of annulling the sale or denoting the attempts by one party to the other to annul the sale. By itself, the document in question does not confer any independent or fresh rights on any of the parties. At the most, it refers to a fact (if proved to be true) that the petitioners did not receive the entire sale consideration mentioned in the registered sale deed. The respondent is said to have agreed to pay the balance of consideration by a particular time. Consequences of failure to pay, under the same, do not have any bearing on the sale as such. Even while the sale that has taken place through a registered document is kept intact, the respondent is said to have acknowledged the right of the petitioners to take steps in accordance with law to recover the amount. The document if at all, recognizes the right of the petitioner to take steps in accordance with law. Neither the Stamp Act, nor the Registration Act require that the acknowledgement of the rights of one individual to avail the legal remedies by another, needs any stamp duty or registration. Strictly speaking, an individual does not need the consent or approval of another, to enforce his legal rights. Therefore, the document cannot be treated as inadmissible in evidence. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, and the order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Kadapa in I.A.No.1672 of 2009 in O.S.No.13 of 2005 is set aside. It is directed that the document in question shall be received in evidence, subject however to the condition that it shall be for the petitioners to prove the contents thereof, or to establish its legality. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY December 01, 2009 BVV