THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.2361 of 2011 (Dated : 07-09-2011) Between: Chinna Reddy Varada Reddy S/o Rami Reddy …Petitioner A n d Venthrla Anki Reddy S/o Anki Reddy ….Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.2361 of 2011 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 23-2-2011 passed in O.S.No.64 of 2009 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur, Kadapa District, whereby and whereunder, the learned Senior Civil Judge overruled the objection raised by the petitioner- defendant with regard to compulsory registration of the suit agreement of sale dated 23-01-2007. 2. The petitioner is the defendant and whereas the respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.64 of 2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur. The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 23-01-2007. According to the plaintiff, the defendant offered to sell the suit schedule property for a consideration of Rs.8,50,000/- and received an advance of Rs.50,000/- and executed an agreement of sale dated 23-01-2007. The petitioner-defendant filed written statement resisting the relief sought for in the application. When the respondent-plaintiff tendered the agreement of sale for being marked as an exhibit on his behalf, the petitioner-defendant raised an objection on the ground that the agreement of sale is not a registered one. 3. The learned Senior Civil Judge, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, and placing reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Food Corporation of India v. M/s. Babulal Agarwal[1] overruled the objection raised by the petitioner-defendant, by order dated 23-2- 2011. Hence this revision. 4. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 8-7-2011. The respondent entered appearance through a counsel. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the agreement of sale amounts to transfer of rights over immovable property and therefore, it is a compulsory registerable document, as per Section 17(g) of the Registration Act and therefore, the order impugned in the revision is liable to be set aside. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that as per proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, in a suit for specific performance, an unregistered document can be admitted in evidence. 8. The trial Court relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Food Corporation of India’s case ( 1 supra), wherein it has been held that the agreement of sale itself will not create any title over that particular property and therefore, the agreement of sale is not a compulsorily registerable document. Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 read as hereunder:- “49. Effect of non-registration of documents required to be registered:- No document required by Section 17 or by any provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882], to be registered shall— (a) affect any immovable property comprised therein, or (b) confer any power to adopt, or (c ) be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power, Unless it has been registered: [Provided that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by this Act, or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument.” 9. The Proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act does not give any room for doubt with regard to admissibility of the unregistered document effecting immovable property in a suit for specific performance under chapter II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. 10. Indisputably, the suit filed by the respondent is one of specific performance. Therefore, the trial Court is justified in over ruling the objection raised by the petitioner-defendant. I do not see any illegality, irregularity in the order impugned in the revision warranting interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.07-09-2011 *RAR [1] AIR 2004 SC 2926