THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1143 OF 2010 Dated 6th August, 2010 Between: Syed Badruddin …Petitioner And Chintakunta Krishnudu …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri K.Somakonda Reddy Counsel for the respondent: Sri S.Venkata Subba Rao The Court made the following ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order dated 16.09.2009 in O.S.No.161 of 2005 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur, Kurnool Distict (for short “the Court below”). The petitioner herein is the defendant in the suit. The respondent herein filed the suit initially for permanent injunction and later, he amended the plaint for declaration of title on the plea of adverse possession. When document dated 22.03.1977, styled as ‘agreement of sale’, was sought to be admitted in evidence, the petitioner has raised an objection saying that the said document is an outright sale deed and therefore, the same is not admissible in evidence. The Court below overruled the said objection and permitted the same to be marked by the plaintiff/respondent subject to his payment of stamp duty and penalty treating it as an agreement of sale. At the hearing, Sri K.Somakonda Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, made a strong effort to convince this Court that the order of the Court below is erroneous. The learned counsel has taken me through the contents of the document in question and argued that the recitals thereof would clearly prove that the document is an out-and-out sale deed. He further stated that an unregistered sale deed is not admissible in evidence. As regards the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, on a careful perusal of the recitals of the document, I am in agreement with him. It is clearly mentioned in the said document that the petitioner has sold the property by receiving cash of Rs.30,000/- towards sale consideration and put the father of the respondent in possession. It is further declared that the father of the respondent is entitled to enjoy the property with absolute rights and the legal heirs of the petitioner have no right whatsoever. It is further recited that the sale deed was executed with his free consent and that the same will be registered in the name of the respondent’s father or his nominee. From the above noted recitals, I am of the opinion that it is clear that the instrument is a sale deed and not an agreement of sale. However, my above conclusion does not change the result of the case because the respondent is seeking to rely upon the said document to substantiate his plea of adverse possession. Therefore, though the respondent has filed the suit for declaration of title, the relief is not based on the abovementioned document but on his plea of possession. As such in my opinion, as the respondent wants to rely upon this document for collateral purpose, for which even an unregistered document can be admitted in evidence provided it is duly stamped and penalty is paid. On the premises as above, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, however, with the modification that the document in question shall be treated as a sale deed for the purpose of stamp duty and penalty. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, CRPMP No.1565 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 6th August, 2010 vrn