THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO C.R.P.NO.392 OF 2010 ORDER: Though notice was ordered on 11-02-2010 and the same is delivered on the Respondent – Plaintiff, none appeared on his behalf. This Revision is directed against an Order passed on 25-11-2009 by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Adilabad, declining to admit the Document dated 21-10- 2004, produced by the Defendants during the course of evidence on the plea that the same is an agreement of sale of immovable property and hence, it is liable to be compulsorily registered in terms of Section 17 of the Andhra Pradesh Registration Act (for short ‘the Act’), and since the document in question has not been so registered the same is not liable to be received in evidence in terms of Section 49 of the Act. The Plaintiff has sued for declaration of his title and recovery of possession of the suit schedule land from the Defendants. To the suit claim the Defendants have taken a defense that they have entered into an agreement of sale on 21-10-2004 and pursuant to which they were put in possession and hence, they cannot be dispossessed from out of the suit scheduled land by the Plaintiff. For establishing this defense, the agreement of sale dated 21-10-2004, was sought to be marked in evidence, at which stage, the Plaintiff has objected to the same resulting in, the objection being upheld by the learned Senior Civil Judge, through his Order dated 23-11-2009, which is sought to be revised in this Revision. It is not in dispute that any document of a transaction, which is required to be registered in terms of Section 17 of the Act, cannot be received in evidence, if it is not so registered, in accordance with Section 49 of the Act. But however, the Proviso to Section 49 of the act has culled out three exceptions wherein a document, though not registered, can still be received in evidence. A learned single Judge of this Court has considered the effect of this Proviso to Section 49 of the Act in SARDAR RAM SINGH v. SARDAR RAM SINCH AND ANOTHER[1], and concluded the issue in Paragraph Nos.7 and 8 of this judgment in the following manner: “7. 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 applied 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 – 53A 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. 8. Here is a case where the document in question is an agreement of sale and sought to be relied upon as a defence in an application filed for injunction to restrain the party thereof from interfering with the alleged possession of the plaintiff. The defence taken in such action appears to be that the propounder of the document has purchased the property under a contract of sale and, therefore, he is in possession. Having regard to the competing claims, it is obvious that the document in question attracts either clause (1) or (2) of the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act and, therefore, the document in question can be received as evidence by the Court. ” In view of the principle enunciated by this Court in the Judgment cited supra, the document in question dated 21-10-2004, though not registered, but is sufficiently stamped, can be received in evidence for a very limited purpose. The defendants in the Suit, for collateral purpose, can rely upon the said document to resist the claim of the plaintiff. Hence, I allow this Revision and direct the learned Senior Civil Judge, Adilabad, to receive and mark the document, namely, agreement of sale dated 21-10-2004, offered by the defendants, for a very limited purpose, covered by the exception under Proviso to Section 49 of the Act. No costs. --------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J mrk 12th April 2009 [1] 2004 (4) ALD 735