IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD CIVIL REVISI oN PETITION NO: 765 0F 2021 Petition under Article 227 of the constitution of lndia preferred to the High court against the order dated 29.01 .2021 in l.A.No.7g9 of 2019 in o.s.No.30.t of 2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Nalgonda. Between: 1 2 Vangala Ravinder Reddy, S/o. Ram Reddy, Aged about 50 vears. occuDation. Agflcurrure, K/o. shivanaggudem Village, Marriguda lvlandal, Nalgonda Disirict. Kumbam Surendar Reddy, S/o. Narsimha Reddy, Aoed about 50 vears. occupation. Emptoyee, ' RJo. tndurthi Vitdd;, "Grrl;il; ""M;;;;l: Nalgonda District ..PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS AND Petition under section 15'l cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in suit bearing number o.s. No. 301 of 20i2 pending before the Hon,ble Senior civil Judge at Nalgonda, pending adjudication of civil Revision petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI ANAND KUMAR KAPOOR Counsel for the Respondents: SRI MUNGALA NARAYANA RAO The Court made the following: ORDER '1 . U. Venkatamma, W/o. Late Narsimha, aged about 60 vears, Occuoatron. Agricu ttu re, Fl/o. Sarampet Viilage, ManiguOa Vra noi r,' fiti bb;i; fi;i;i;i. 2. U. Ramasw{ny, -S/o. Late Narsimha, aged about 35 years, Occupation. Agncufiure, R/o. sarampet Vi age, Marriguda IVandai, Nalgonda bistrict. ..,RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS lA NO: 1 OF 2021 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD C.R.P.No.765 of 2O2L ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 29.O1.2021 in LA.No.789 of 2019 in O.S.No.30l of 2()12 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda (for short, "tria1 Court"). 2 . The brief facts of the case are that the petitlorlers/ plaintiils liled a suit for perpetual injunction. In the said suit, the respondents/ defendants filed an agreement of sale alleged to have been executed by one Gunreddy Malla Reddy and Chirapu Narsi Reddy in the year 2000 and they want to get it marked. The petitioners/ plaintiffs opposed on the ground tlLat the said document requires registration since the sale consideration is more than Rs.20,000/-; and that as per Section t7(1)(g) of Registration Act, an agreement of sale of immovable property of the value of Rs.100/- and upwards sha11 be required to be registered. The only exception is when the said documents is considerecl in a suit for specific performance of sale in which case it need not be registered. Since the suit is filed for injunction, the said un-registered document cannot be received in evidence or consiCered for any purpose and not even for collateral purpose and thus, the said document is inadmissible in evidence and is iiable to be rejected. 3. The respondents/ defendants filed a counter denying the averments stating that the vendors of the defendants have executed agreemen$o{sale in the year 2000 and delivered vac.rnt possession of the suit land to the respondents and since then, they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. The respondents filed an agreement of sale alleged to have been executed by their vendors dated 29.|2.2OOO along with other documents. While marking the documents in B-Series, the Court directed to pay the deficit stamp duty and penalty by way of impounding and directed the Superintendent to collect the deficit stamp duty. Accordingly, the trial court has collected 10 times to the origina-l agreement of sale. 4. The trial Court, on consideration of the record, declined to accept the plea of the petitioners and dismissed the interlocutory application. Aggrieved thereby, rhe present CRp is filed. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/ plaintiffs submitted that the agreement of sale alleged to have been executed by the vendors of the respondents, requires registration since the sale consideration is more than Rs.20,ooo/-. He further submitted that as per Section 17(i)(g) of Registration Act, an agreement of sale of im;novable property of value of Rs.10o/- and upwards shar be required to be registered and as such, the said document cannot be received in evidence. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/ defendants submitted that the said document can be received for collateral purpose of proving possession as stamp duty was already paid. In support of his contention, he relied on the J I decisions reported in Vengalapudi Manga Vs. paluri Kannabbai & othersl, K.R.Subrahmanyam Vs. A.Raja Reddyz and Sardar Ram Singh V. Sardar Ram Singhs. 7. Admittedly, the document dated 29.12.2OOO is an agreement of sale for the value more than Rs.100/- and therelbre, it requires registration as per Section l7 of the Registration Act. Section 49 of the Registration Act also lays down the effect of non registration of documents required to be registered, if not registered, shall not affect any immovable property comprised therein or such document shall be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property. 8. The proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, would show that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by 1908 Act or the Transfer of property Act, 19g2 to be registered may be received as an evidence to the contract in a suit for specific performance or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument. By virtue of the said proviso, an unregistered sale deed of an immovable property of the value of Rs. 100/- and more can be admitted in evidence as evidence of any collaterar transaction not required to be effected by registered document. 9. Admittedly, it is a case of injunction and granting injunction and the issue of possession, balance of convenience and irreparable '20t3 5 nlo no 'z 2oo2 s ett qoq ':oo+ 1a; aLo z:s loss will be considered. The issue of possession is taken for consideration and to prove the possession, the document, which is un-registered is placed on record has been considered. It is not a case of declaration of titre, where the statutory requirement that the document needs to be registered. 1 0. In catena of judgments, the Apex Court held that the sale deed even though is not admissibie in evidence can be looked into for collateral purpose to show the nature of possession of the parties over the suit land. The trial Court has passed a just and reasonable order and as such, the said order needs no interference. i 1. For the aforesaid reasons, the Civil Revision petition is dismissed, confirming the order dated 29.01.2O21 in LA.No.7B9 of 2019 in O.S.No.3O1 of 2Ol2 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this civil Revision petition shal1 also stand dismissed. SD/.B.SATYAVATHI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 'ii SECTION OFFICER The Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda. One CC to Sri Anand Kumar Kapoor, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri lvlungala Narayana Rao, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies One Spare Copy br .+ ,TRUE COPY' \ To, 1 2 3 4 5 g t HIGH COURT DATED: 1410912021 ORDER CRP.No.765 ot 2021 DISMISSING THE CRP ', . ilt, )4 O