IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.R.P.NO.331 OF 2009 Date:03.02.2011 Between:- Ballapuri Rangamma ..Petitioner/plaintiff And Vallepu Subba Rao .. Respondent/defendant ORDER:- The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 16- 12-2008 in O.S.No.411 of 2001 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chirala, Prakasam District, whereunder and whereby, the document dated 15-02-1999 sought to be received was rejected on the ground that it was an unregistered document. 2. Heard. 3. The suit is filed by the petitioner herein for specific performance of agreement of sale. When the document dated 15-02-1999 was sought to be marked by the petitioner/plaintiff, other side took an objection that it requires stamp duty, penalty and registration. The trial Court came to the conclusion that it is a mortgage deed with conditional sale, which is compulsorily registerable and refused to mark the document. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the agreement of sale can be received as evidence, even without registration for a collateral purpose, as required under Proviso to Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908. 5. It is not in dispute before this Court that the document in question falls within the meaning of ‘Instrument’ defined in Section 2(14) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short, ‘the Act’), which reads as under: “Instrument:- “Instrument” includes every document by which any right or liability is, or purports to be, created, transferred, limited, extended, extinguished or recorded.” Once it is an Instrument within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Act, it requires stamp duty and penalty. Under Section 35 of the Act, unless stamp duty and penalty is paid, it cannot be used for any purpose. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manjabai Krishna Patil (D)by L.Rs vs. Raghunath Revaji Patil and another,[1] wherein at para No.19, it is held thus: “In this case also the transaction is a mortgage by conditional sale and having regard to the provisions of Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, the agreement of sale was not compulsorily registerable.” There is no dispute that an agreement of sale was not compulsorily registerable. No doubt, Section 17 of the Registration Act must be construed strictly. Unless the document is brought within the ambit and scope of Section 17, non registration can be no bar of its being in evidence. But before admitting in evidence, the document has to be duly stamped as required under Section 35 of Indian Stamp Act. In Avinash Kumar Chauhan v. Vijaya Krishna Mishra,[2] at para No.21, it is held thus: “Section 35 of the Act, however, rules out applicability of such provision as it is categorically provided therein that a document of this nature shall not be admitted for any purpose whatsoever. If all purposes for which the document is sought to be brought in evidence are excluded, we fail to see any reason as to how the document would be admissible for collateral purposes”. Petitioner, who tends the insufficiently stamped document to receive in evidence, must take steps to get the document impounded by competent authority. Hence, the impugned order is set aside and the trial Court is directed to impound the document in the first instance and thereafter, receive the document in question subject to proof, relevance and admissibility that may be raised by opposite party. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 3rd February, 2011 AMD [1] 2007 STPL(LE) 38225 SC [2] AIR 2009 SC 1489