IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.627 of 2011 Between: Danda Siva Reddy ..... PETITIONER AND Jalla Rami Reddy .....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.627 of 2011 O R D E R: Heard both the counsel. Petitioner herein is the defendant in the suit O.S.63/2003 filed by the respondent herein on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri for specific performance of the Agreement of Sale dated 05.05.1983 along with the endorsement therein dated 04.06.1983. As per the Agreement of Sale, the defendant offered to sell the said property for a total sale consideration of Rs.46,000/- for which the plaintiff agreed for the same, and pursuant to the said oral agreement, the Agreement of Sale has been executed. Pursuant to the said Agreement of Sale, Rs.20,000/- was paid towards advance sale consideration and the remaining Rs.26,000/- is required to be paid within one month i.e. on or before 04.06.1983. It is stated that as stipulated in the Agreement of Sale, out of remaining sale consideration of Rs.26,000/-, a sum of Rs.25,000/- was paid on 04.06.1983 and thus, the sale consideration of Rs.45,000/- was paid and accordingly, the schedule property was handed over to the plaintiff with all rights. Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the endorsement made on Ex.A1-Agreement of Sale is a Sale Deed and therefore, it requires stamp and registration, and is not liable to be received in evidence. In support of his contention, he relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Jannu Chander Babu v. Manchikatla Satyanarayana[1]. The said case relates to a suit for injunction and therefore, I am of the opinion that the said judgment cannot be relied on in cases relating to suit for specific performance. In so far as the suit for specific performance is concerned, as per proviso to Sec.49 of the Registration Act, even the unregistered document connecting to immovable property requiring the stamp and registration may also be received as evidence of the contract in a suit for specific performance. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the Court below rightly received the said document and marked as Ex.A1, however, subject to the objection raised by the petitioner/defendant at the time of arguments. I do not see any infirmity, legal or otherwise to interfere with the impugned order. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 22.07.2011 Dsr [1] 2003(2) ALD 640