THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2017 OF 2009 DATED: 18-03-2011 Between: Aisha Bee & 3 others. .... PETITIONERS And N.Nisar Ahmed. .... RESPONDENT ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 19.03.2009, in O.S.No.182 of 2007 on the file of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, wherein the document, dated 24.03.1997, sought to be marked by the respondent herein-plaintiff in his evidence as an exhibit was objected to by the learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants on the ground that it requires registration and stamp duty and the trial Court directed that the document may be received on payment of sufficient stamp duty and penalty and held that it does not require registration. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. Respondent herein filed the suit for declaration that the registered General Power of Attorney, dated 21.11.1990, executed in favour of the plaintiff by Aisha Bee-1st defendant and her sisters is irrevocable and also for permanent injunction. Petitioners-defendants filed written statements contesting the suit. Necessary issues were settled and the trial of the suit commenced. 4. During the course of recording evidence of the plaintiff as P.W.1, learned counsel for the petitioners sought to exhibit a document, dated 24.03.1997, alleged to have been executed by the 1st defendant in favour of P.W.1 and the same is objected to by the respondent on the ground that it requires stamp duty and also registration. 5. The document is described as agreement, wherein consideration is received. It purports to acknowledge the receipt of sale consideration from the plaintiff by the 1st defendant in respect of the alienations effected by him pursuant to the General Power of Attorney, marked as Ex.A1. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff would contend that the document is nothing more than an acknowledgment and therefore it does not require any registration. 7. The document does not stop with merely acknowledging the receipt of sale consideration pertaining to the alienations made by the plaintiff pursuant to the GPA-Ex.A1. In the second page of the document, it is further stated that the plaintiff-GPA holder may take the remaining extent of land unsold, sell the same and receive the sale consideration thereof for himself and the 1st defendant would not have any concern therewith. The said recital in the second page of the document is in the nature of an arrangement under which the 1st defendant was parting with her rights in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the remaining extent of the land, which was not yet sold by the plaintiff. The said recital also operates as a relinquishment of the share of the 1st defendant in that portion of the land, which was given away in favour of the plaintiff. The said recital contained in the document, pertaining to the balance portion of the land remaining unsold, is in the nature of a conveyance, which creates right in favour of the plaintiff and to that extent operates as a relinquishment on the part of the 1st defendant. The document, therefore, certainly falls within the description of Section 17 of the Registration Act (for brevity, ‘the Act’) and therefore requires compulsory registration. The finding of the trial Court that the document does not require registration is therefore unsustainable and is accordingly set aside. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff would contend that even if the document is held to be compulsorily registerable, still the same is admissible in evidence, under the proviso to Section 49(1) of the Act as the same is sought to be produced for a collateral purpose. Learned counsel for the petitioners- defendants disputes the same and contends that there is no collateral purpose involved and the document is sought to be marked for the main purpose of showing that the plaintiff is entitled to alienate the remaining portion of the land and receive the sale consideration for himself in view of the recital contained in the said document. It is stated that in fact such alienations have already taken place. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants would therefore contend that the disputed document is sought to be filed in support of the alienations effected by the plaintiff on his own in favour of others in respect of the remaining extent, which is relinquished by the 1st defendant. 10. The trial Court has not considered in the impugned order as to whether or not the document is admissible for a collateral purpose under the proviso of the Act. The said aspect has not been adverted to in the impugned order. Hence, it is considered imprudent to go into the said aspect in this proceeding. The trial Court is therefore directed to consider the question as to whether or not the document is admissible in evidence for a collateral purpose under the proviso to Section 49 (1) of the Act in the event of such a plea being raised by the plaintiff, before proceeding with them latter. The direction of the trial Court that the plaintiff shall pay the stamp duty and penalty is not challenged by the plaintiff and therefore, the said direction attained finality. 11. In the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside to the extent that the document does not require registration and it is left open to the trial Court to consider the question as to whether or not the document is admissible in evidence under the proviso to Section 49 (1) of the Act on its own merits, in the event of such plea being raised by the plaintiff. 12. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 18th March, 2011. Tsy