THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2416 of 2010 Date: 09.11.2010 Between: Smt. S. Hajara Bee … Petitioner and S. Abdul Azeez and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2416 of 2010 ORDER : Heard both sides. 2. This civil revision petition is directed against order, dated 30.4.2010, in E.A.No.118 of 2009 in E.A.No.121 of 2007 in E.P.No.47 of 2006 in O.S.No.3 of 2004 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Guntakal, Anantapur District, whereunder and whereby the application filed by the 1st respondent-claimant under Section 31 and 33 of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 seeking to send the agreement of sale, dated 9.2.2003, to the Collector for impounding i.e., determining the duty with which the instrument is chargeable, was allowed. 3. The suit filed by the petitioner-plaintiff basing on a promissory note was decreed. In pursuance of the said decree, the decree holder filed execution petition for recovery of the decretal amount by way of sale of E.P. schedule property, which was attached before judgment. During the pendency of the execution proceedings, the 1st respondent- claimant filed a claim petition stating that he has got interest over the E.P. schedule property basing on agreement of sale, dated 9.2.2003. When an attempt was made to receive the document, it was not received as evidence for want of payment of adequate stamp duty. Therefore, the present petition was filed seeking to send the document to the District Collector, Anantapur, for determining the duty with which the instrument is chargeable. The trial Court, after considering the rival contentions, allowed the said petition. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition is filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that on earlier occasion similar petition, filed by the 1st respondent-claimant, was dismissed by the trial Court and, therefore, the present petition is not maintainable. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 1st respondent- claimant contended that, at the threshold, denying the right of the 1st respondent is not permissible and, therefore, after impounding the document in question, the relevancy or admissibility can be decided by the trial Court. 6. In pursuance of the agreement of sale, the 1st respondent- claimant has not taken any steps to get the property transferred or filed a suit for specific performance basing on the agreement of sale. So long as the agreement of sale is not transformed into a regular sale deed, the 1st respondent-claimant would not get any title to the property. No doubt, at the stage of receiving the documents, the relevancy or admissibility of a document cannot be tested or decided, but, at the same time, the 1st respondent-claimant must show prima- facie relevancy of the document in question in an application under Order 21 Rule 58 C.P.C., seeking title to adjudicate the objection taken. The object of Order 21 Rule 58 C.P.C. is to prevent protraction of litigation driving him to file a suit to settle his right, title and interest. The right, title and interest can be adjudicated in execution proceedings itself. This rule, thus, deals with adjudication of claims and objections to attachment of properties in execution proceedings. 7. There cannot be any dispute that the agreement of sale does not confer any right, title or interest over the property. Therefore, prima- facie the said document is not admissible in evidence so as to decide the rights of the parties over the property in the execution proceedings. The execution proceedings cannot be converted into a suit for enforcing a contract based upon agreement of sale. Of course, even an unregistered document can be looked into for collateral purpose, like proving possession over the property etc., as contemplated under the proviso to Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act. It is not the case of the 1st respondent-claimant that the document now sought to be impounded is necessary for using collateral purpose, because the said fact has not been specifically stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition before the trial Court. Therefore, not even a single reason or cause is assigned in the affidavit filed in support of the petition as to why the agreement of sale is required for the purpose of deciding the matters in dispute or the controversy in the execution proceedings. Therefore, sending the document to District Collector for impounding, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is beyond the jurisdiction of the trial Court and hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 8. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned order, dated 30.4.2010, in E.A.No.118 of 2009 in E.A.No.121 of 2007 in E.P.No.47 of 2006 in O.S.No.3 of 2004 passed by the trial Court. No order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE K.C. BHANU 09.11.2010. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2416 of 2010 09.11.2010 (Msr)