IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST (21ST) DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.6233 of 2009 Between: Anga Bhuloka Rao … Petitioner And: Smt. Noorjahan Begum … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.6233 of 2009 ORDER: This revision is directed against the docket order dated 28.08.2009 in OS No.34 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka, wherein the defendant was directed to pay Rs.960/- towards stamp duty and Rs.9,600/- towards penalty, total Rs.10,560/-, on the subject document and also holding that it shall be registered before it can be admitted in evidence. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The respondent herein filed suit OS No.34 of 2007 for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property. The petitioner/defendant filed written statement, contesting the suit. Even during the course of trial when the matter stood posted for defendant’s side evidence, the defendant filed an agreement dated 25.05.1995 and sought to mark the same as an exhibit. The plaintiff objected for marking the said document on the ground that it requires stamp duty and penalty and also inadmissible for want of registration. The learned Senior Civil Judge, up hold the objection and directed the defendant to pay the stamp duty and penalty in a sum of Rs.10,560/-. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant would contend that the petitioner has no grievance regarding the said direction, but his grievance is regarding the finding that the document requires registration. Hence, the only question that arises for consideration in the present revision is whether the disputed document is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration? 5. A perusal of the disputed document dated 25.05.1995 shows that it was a sale deed, coupled with delivery of possession. Even the document is described as ‘possessory sale deed’ in respect of the property, worth Rs.12,000/-. A perusal of the contents of the document would disclose that all the necessary recitals that are required for regular sale deed are incorporated in the document. The document recites about to payment of entire sale consideration of Rs.12,000/- and delivery of possession and also declares that henceforth, the vendee shall enjoy the property absolutely with all rights and vendor shall not have any concern with the same. Except making a recital towards end of the document to the effect that as and when the vendor desires, the vendee would execute a registered sale deed, the rest of the document would show that it is not an agreement of sale, but is drafted as a regular sale deed itself. 6. As per Section 17 of the Registration Act, any document that creates, declares, assigns or extinguishes any rights over immoveable property, the said document requires compulsory registration. The subject document certainly creates and declares the rights in the immovable property in favour of the vendee. The said document therefore requires compulsory registration under section 17 of the Registration Act. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision in ‘Attirala Chinnamma vs. Gummadi Ravindraiah[1]’, wherein it was held that ‘in a suit for specific performance of an unregistered agreement of sale, the said document can be received as evidence in a suit by virtue of proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act’. The above decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case for the simple reason that the document in question in the present case is not an agreement of sale, but virtually a regular sale deed and the present suit is not one of specific performance, which is specifically covered by the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, but is a suit for declaration of title and for recovery of possession and the subject document is sought to be produced in evidence by the defendant, to establish his defence. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would next contend that under the proviso to Section 49(c), unregistered document can be received as evidence of any collateral transaction and in that regard, he relied upon a decision in ‘Avinash Kumar Chauhan vs. Vijay Krishna Mishra[2]’, wherein it was held that ‘there is no prohibition under section 49 of the Registration Act to receive an unregistered document in evidence for collateral purpose’. It is to be noted that the petitioner/defendant seeks to exhibit the disputed document in evidence in support of his claim over the schedule property, as vendee, and not for any collateral purpose. The entire defence of the petitioner/defendant rests on this document. The disputed document seeks to convey title in favour of the defendant, except that registration is postponed to a future date, otherwise all trappings of regular sale deed with all usual recitals associated with a sale deed find place in the said document. 9. In a decision in ‘Vangala Laxmamma vs. Pasham Narsi Reddy[3]’, this Court held that ‘though an unregistered document required to be registered under law is not admissible in evidence to claim any right under it, it would be admissible in evidence for a collateral purpose i.e., for a purpose other than that for which the document was created.’ 10. It is no doubt true that unregistered document is inadmissible in evidence to prove title or any rights under it, and it will be admissible in evidence to show the character of possession, which is collateral purpose. But when the document is sought to be exhibited in evidence not for any collateral purpose, but for establishing his claim of right over the property based on the said document, then proviso to Section 49(c) would not come into play and the document becomes inadmissible for want of registration. As the subject document is admittedly unregistered, the trial Court has rightly sustained the objection regarding the admissibility in evidence on the ground of non-registration. In the circumstances the impugned order does not call for any interference by this Court. 11. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. The interim stay granted earlier stands vacated. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 21.02.2011 bss [1] 2009 (2) ALD 305 [2] 2009(1) LS 34 (SC) [3] 2010(3)ALT 165