THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2836 OF 2010 DATED: 29-01-2011 Between: Kothuru Sri Ramulu. .... PETITIONER And Parvatham Rami Reddy & 3 others. .... RESPONDENTS ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 21-06-2010, in O.S.No.316 of 2007 on the file of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, wherein the objections raised by the petitioner herein, regarding the admissibility of the disputed suit document, dated 09-11-2001, were overruled and the document was permitted to be marked as Ex.A.1. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent-plaintiff. Perused the record. 3. 1st respondent herein filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 09-11-2001, and for delivery of possession of the plaint schedule property of 13½ cents out of 27.00 cents in R.S.Nos.18/8 and 18/9 of Ramarajyanagar, Vidyadharpuram. Petitioner herein, who is the 4th defendant, filed written statement contesting the suit. After necessary issues were settled, the trial of the suit commenced. In the course of chief-examination of P.W.1, the document, dated 09-11-2001, was sought to be marked as Ex.A.1. Petitioner-D4 raised objections, firstly on the ground that the document is described as a partition deed and therefore it requires registration and secondly, the document, if construed as agreement of sale, is not supported by consideration and the consideration recited in the document as Rs.1,50,000/- is false and is contrary to contents pleaded in the plaint. The trial Court overruled both the objections and directed marking of the document as Ex.A1. Aggrieved by the same, present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 4. The disputed document, dated 09-11-2001, described as ‘Vaatala druva patram-cum-vikraya khararu patram’, is the document confirming the shares-cum- agreement of sale. Under the said document, the plaintiff claims to have purchased an extent of 13½ cents being half share of 27.00 cents, which was the subject-matter of O.S.No.312 of 1994 in which a decree was passed in favour of the defendants herein. 5. It is well settled that the nomenclature used to describe the document has of no consequence and the nature and character of the document has to be ascertained only by looking into its contents. The document is not described as partition deed. It is described as deed of confirmation of shares. In fact, no partition is also effected between the parties to the document under the said document. A perusal of the contents of the document would only show that it was an agreement of sale for purchase of an extent of 13½ cents out of 27.00 cents and regular conveyance creating rights in respect of the said extent is contemplated on a future date after the settlement of the Court-related dispute. As the disputed document is not a partition deed, going by its contents, the same does not require registration and hence, the said document is admissible in evidence. 6. The second objection relates to the aspect of alleged failure of consideration. The document recites passing of consideration in a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. Petitioner-D4 contends that the averments in the plaint, regarding the passing of consideration, are at variance with the contents of the suit agreement of sale and therefore plaintiff is not entitled for specific performance as the consideration as recited in the document is not shown to have passed. The question as to whether or not the suit agreement of sale is supported by consideration and whether or not any consideration has in fact been passed and whether or not the recitals in the document are at variance with the averments in the plaint regarding the passage of consideration and if so their impact on the relief prayed for by the plaintiff, are all matters to be considered by the trial Court on evidence during the course of trial. The failure, if any, of passage of consideration in the manner, which is distinct and different from the averments in the plaint, do not however impinge upon the admissibility of the document in evidence. The probative value of the document and its efficacy as an instrument based on which the relief prayed for can be granted are different and distinct aspects from the admissibility of the document in evidence. The admissibility of the document in evidence cannot be objected to on the ground of alleged failure of consideration. The trial Court, however, recorded a finding in the impugned order to the effect that the document is supported by consideration by observing that consideration under the document was fixed at Rs.1,50,000/- and the plaintiff stated to have paid Rs.20,000/- on one occasion and another Rs.1,30,000/- on another occasion. The said observation giving a finding on the question of passage of consideration is unwarranted at this stage. The question as to whether or not the suit document is supported by consideration is a matter that has to be decided at the time the entire evidence is adduced during the trial of the suit. The said observation recorded by the trial Court in the impugned order to the effect that the suit document is supported by consideration, is set aside. However, the objections raised by the petitioner-defendant regarding the admissibility of the documents in evidence are unsustainable and they are accordingly overruled. 7. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is disposed of, subject to the observation as above. Interim stay granted on 16-07-2010 stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 29th January, 2011. Tsy