IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2450 OF 2008 Between: Smt. Kaja Bala Tripura Sundari and others .....PETITIONERS AND Smt. Nalluri Subbalakshmi ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2450 OF 2008 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 24.03.2008, in O.S.No.863 of 1999, on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur, whereunder and whereby, the trial Court came to a conclusion that the document, purported to have been styled as “Swadina Kriya Agreement Ane Kararunama Vybhava Druvikarana Patram”, dated 09.12.1985, sought to be received as evidence in the suit for permanent injunction, does not require registration, as it falls under exception of Section 17 (2) (v) of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short, “the Act”). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that there is no prior agreement of sale executed by the father of the petitioners in favour of vendors of the respondent herein; that the recitals in the document in question would go to show that the petitioners are willing to execute a registered sale deed and transfer their right in favour of the vendors of the respondent herein confirming the prior transaction made by the father of the petitioners in favour of the vendors of the respondent herein, which is purported to be an oral one; that therefore, the said document is an instrument within the meaning of Section 2 (14) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short, “Stamp Act”) and so, it requires stamp duty and penalty and hence, the receipt of the said document is unsustainable. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the document sought to be received does not fall under any one of the clauses under Section 17 of the Act; that it is only evidencing a past transaction; that it does not create or extinguish any right and so, it is not an instrument within the meaning of Section 2 (14) of the Stamp Act and hence, the said document does not require any registration. 4. Section 2 (14) of the Stamp Act defines the word instrument, which reads thus: ““Instrument”:- “Instrument” includes every document by which any right or liability is, or purports to be, created, transferred, limited, extended, extinguished or recorded.” Such an instrument is liable for Stamp duty and penalty under Section 35 of the Stamp Act, which reads thus: “No instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, or shall be acted upon, registered or authenticated by any such person or by any public officer, unless such instrument is duly stamped:” 5. No doubt, the document which sought to be received now is evidencing a transaction between the father of the petitioners and the vendors of the respondent by receiving consideration of Rs.2,000/- by the father of the petitioners and delivery of possession to enjoy with absolute rights. There was no reference in the document with regard to the execution of any agreement of sale or execution of registered Sale Deed by the father of the petitioners in favour of the vendors of the respondent. But, the document would clearly go to show that the father of the petitioners delivered possession of the suit schedule property to the vendors of the respondent and that they are paying taxes and enjoying the suit schedule property since then. Till the terms and conditions of the agreement of sale are fulfilled and transformed into a registered sale deed, the vendors of the respondent herein would not get any right, title and interest over the suit schedule property. But, in view of the fact that the possession of the suit schedule property has been delivered to the vendors of the respondent herein and that they are enjoying the suit schedule property, they can be said to be in the possession of property in pursuance of the agreement of sale. No right, title and interest can be passed to the vendors of the respondent so long as the concerned persons execute a registered sale deed in favour of the vendors of the respondent. Admittedly, no such sale deed is executed, but by virtue of the document in question, the petitioners had undertaken to execute a regular registered sale deed in favour of the vendors of the respondent. So, the said document requires registration because right, title and interest can be transferred only when the document is registered as required under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, since the value of the property is more than Rs.2,000/-. Therefore, the document purported to create right or transfer of interest over schedule property requires registration, under Section 17 of the Act. If the document is sought to be received for collateral purposes under proviso to Section 49 of the Act, then the document has to be impounded under Section 35 of the Stamp Act and necessary stamp duty and penalty have to be paid. Admittedly the document was not impounded. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order, dated 24.03.2008, in O.S.No.863 of 1999, on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur. It is made clear that the document shall be received subject to payment of stamp duty and penalty. With regard to the registration aspect, it is left open and what is the relevancy of the document has to be decided by the trial Court in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J November 11, 2010 MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2450 OF 2008 November 11, 2010