THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.745 of 2010 AND CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3865 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: Civil Revision Petition No.745 of 2010 is filed against the order dated 18.01.2010 in review petition I.A.No.415 of 2009 in O.S.No.17 of 2008, on the file of Family Court-cum-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, whereunder the said application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC seeking review of the order dated 05.10.2009 sustaining the objection regarding marking of document dated 19.04.2008, was allowed only to the extent of reading the document as ‘agreement of sale (oppanda patram)’ instead of ‘agreement of sale- cum-General Power of Attorney’, but however confirming the earlier order dated 05.10.2009 on other aspects. Civil Revision Petition No.3865 of 2011 is filed assailing the order dated 05.10.2009 whereunder the objection raised by the plaintiff against marking of the document dated 19.04.2008 on the ground of non-registration and want of sufficient stamp duty, was sustained. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. The 1st respondent herein filed the suit O.S.No.17 of 2008 for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 28.03.2008 said to have been executed by 1st defendant in his favour in respect of the suit property. He also prayed for declaring the registered agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney dated 19.04.2008 executed by D1 in favour of D2 and subsequent sale deed dated 02.06.2008 executed by D2 in favour of D3 in respect of the same property, as null and void. The defendants filed written statement contesting the suit. After settling necessary issues, the trial of the suit has commenced. The plaintiff side evidence was completed. During the course of cross- examination of DW1 by the petitioner-D3, he was confronted with a document dated 19.04.2008 which is styled as agreement ‘Oppanda Patram’. The learned counsel for 1st defendant objected for marking the said document on the ground that it is unstamped and unregistered. By the impugned order, the said objection was upheld. The petitioner herein-D3 filed an application I.A.No.415 of 2009, seeking review of the said order. The trial Court did not interfere with the earlier order dated 05.10.2009 on merits, but merely ordered in the review petition that wherever the original order refers to ‘agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney’, the same be read as ‘agreement of sale’ (Oppanda Patram). 4. According to the petitioner-D3, the 1st defendant sold the property in favour of 2nd defendant, for a total consideration of Rs.13,25,000/- but, however, the market value was shown in the registered General Power of Attorney-cum-agreement of sale as Rs.7,01,000/- in accordance with the value mentioned in the basic register maintained by the Registrar’s office and it was registered on 19.04.2008, and that subsequently, on the same day, D1 executed another ‘agreement’ (Oppanda Patram) in favour of D2 mentioning the fact that the actual sale consideration is Rs.13,25,000/- . The petitioner-D3 would contend that the second document, styled as Oppanda Patram, merely reiterates the earlier transaction which was entered into by way of a registered General Power of Attorney- cum-agreement of sale on the same day and, no title, right or interest is conveyed under the second document and such right, title or interest was already conveyed in the earlier document and the second document merely records the first transaction. 5. A perusal of the disputed document, which is an agreement of sale (Oppanda Patram) shows that it purports to reiterate a past transaction which took place earlier on the same day by way of a registered agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney, under which the sale consideration was shown as Rs.7,01,000/- as per the basic value register and, the second document seeks to mention the actual sale consideration agreed upon as Rs.13,25,000/- in as much as no right, title or interest is sought to be conveyed under the second document that is disputed agreement of sale (Oppanda Patram), the said document does not require any stamp duty to be paid on par with the sale deed nor does it require any registration. The second document merely records an earlier transaction and further states that the actual sale consideration is Rs.13,25,000/-. 6. The objection raised by the 1st defendant/plaintiff against marking the said document on the count of stamp duty or on the count of registration as a sale deed, is unsustainable. The impugned order sustaining the said objection is, therefore, liable to be set aside and is, accordingly set aside. It is, however, open to the plaintiff and D1 to raise all other contentions pertaining to the proof or validity of the said document at an appropriate stage during the course of trial, in as much as the said document can be received in evidence and marked as exhibit only subject to proof and relevancy. Both the impugned orders are, accordingly set aside. 7. In the result, both the civil revision petitions are allowed, as stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V. SEETHAPATHY 31st October, 2011 KSM