THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4647 OF 2010 Date:03.02.2011 Between: Kolla Jagadeesh (died per L.R.) K.J.Devaraj .. Petitioner And D.V.Nagaraja and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4647 of 2010 ORDER: This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 09.09.2010 in A.T.A.No.1 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the IV Additional District Judge-cum-appellate authority under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 (the Tenancy Act, for brevity). By the said order, the learned District Judge confirmed the order dated 14.12.2005 in A.T.C.No.2 of 1996 of the Junior Civil Judge-cum-Special Officer under the Tenancy Act, whereby and whereunder the petition was allowed directing the eviction of the petitioners from the suit schedule property admeasuring Acs.4.54 cents in Survey Nos.40/1 and 40/2 of Reppalapattu Village of Pichatur Mandal in Chittoor District. The respondents instituted A.T.C. seeking a direction to Kolla Jagadeesh (hereafter called as tenant) to vacate and surrender the possession of the suit schedule land. They alleged that the tenant trespassed into the land which was given to their father and they filed a suit, being O.S.No.22 of 1990, on the file of the Sub Judge, Srikalahasti, for eviction of petitioner, but the tenant opposed the suit contending that he is the tenant of the land and the suit was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. They then filed A.T.C. for eviction of the tenant alleging that he committed wilful default in payment of rent. The tenant opposed the petition contending that the land was mortgaged to him under a mortgage deed dated 19.11.1987 for an amount of Rs.16,000/-, that the respondents agreed to adjust the interest on the mortgage amount towards rent. During the enquiry before the original authority, the first respondent deposed as PW.1 and besides examining PWs.2 and 3, marked Exs.A1 to A6. The tenant examined himself as RW.1 and marked Exs.B1 to B16, which included the mortgage document Ex.B3. The original authority considered four points including the question, whether Ex.B3 is true, valid and binding on the respondents. On this, a finding was recorded that Ex.B3 cannot be believed and accordingly allowed the petition for eviction. The tenant in the appeal during the pendency died and his wife, son and daughter came on record in A.T.A. as legal heirs. The appellate Judge dismissed the appeal agreeing with the findings of the original authority. In this revision, the counsel for the petitioner (tenant) contends that the execution of Ex.B3 has been corroborated by RW.2 (one of the attestors), but the learned appellate Judge erred in rejecting the same. Accordingly, under Ex.B3 the landlord agreed to adjust interest on the mortgage amount and therefore there is no default. The said contentions are refuted by the counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. A mortgage deed is a document which requires registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 (the Act, for brevity). Under Section 49 of the Act, a document which requires registration under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1982 or Registration Act, affecting any immovable property shall not be construed as conferring right nor can it be received as evidence of any transaction affecting the property. Therefore, both the Courts below rightly rejected Ex.B3. Ex.B3 is rejected notwithstanding the evidence of RW.2. The same cannot be received as evidence and therefore the order of the appellate Judge confirming the original authority is unassailable. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) 03.02.2011 KH