HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3285 OF 2008 ORDER: Petitioner, who is the plaintiff, filed this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India inter alia seeking to assail the correctness of the order dated 13-06-2008 in O.S. No.71 of 2004 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kavali. While recording the evidence of PW-2, an objection was raised by the learned counsel for the respondent- defendant for marking the agreement of sale dated 15-10-1997 as an exhibit. The trial Court rejected the objection holding that he has already obtained a regular sale deed and, if again he is asked to pay the stamp duty and penalty, it would amount to demanding him to pay the stamp duty twice. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff contended that in view of the fact that the agreement of sale was followed by a regular sale deed, which is not an instrument within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and therefore, there is no need to pay any stamp duty and penalty. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that since the document is an agreement of sale, it is compulsorily registerable, and that unless it is properly stamped, it cannot be used even for collateral purpose under proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 and therefore, the trial Court has rightly directed the petitioner to pay the stamp duty and penalty. 4. There is no dispute that the agreement of sale is a compulsorily registerable document under Section 17 (g) of the Registration Act as amended in State of Andhra Pradesh which came into force on 01-04-1999. Therefore, unless required stamp duty and penalty is paid, unregistered document cannot be used as evidence even for collateral purpose in view of the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act. 5. In V. DHARMA REDDY AND OTHERS v. S. HARI RAM[1] this Court held as follows in paragraph No.7: “7. Agreement of sale, undoubtedly, creates rights and liabilities between the parties concerned. However, where it results in a sale-deed, the purpose underlying the agreement cannot be said to be still subsisting even thereafter. Therefore, once a sale- deed is executed, the agreement of sale preceding it cannot be treated as an instrument for the purpose of the Stamp Act.” The facts in the above case are almost similar to the present case. In this case also, a registered sale deed was obtained by the petitioner in pursuance of the agreement of sale. In such circumstances, the agreement of sale cannot be treated as an instrument within the meaning of Section 2 (14) of Stamp Act. If that is the case, it can be received as evidence just like any other document. 6. However, the learned counsel for the respondent relied upon a judgment in BONDAR SINGH AND OTHERS v. NIHAL SINGH AND OTHERS[2], wherein it was held as follows in paragraph No.5: “5. The main question, as we have already noted, is the question of continuous possession of the plaintiffs over the suit lands. The sale deed dated 9-5-1931 by Fakir Chand, father of the defendants in favour of Tola Singh, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, is an admitted document in the sense its execution is not in dispute. The only defence set up against the said document is that it is unstamped and unregistered and therefore, it cannot convey title to the land in favour of the plaintiffs. Under the law a sale deed is required to be properly stamped and registered before it can convey title to the vendee. However, legal position is clear law that a document like the sale deed in the present case, even though not admissible in evidence, can be looked into for collateral purposes.” There is no dispute about the ratio laid down by the Apex Court that a document is not properly stamped and registered, it cannot be admissible in evidence. 7. Similarly, learned counsel also relied upon a judgment in K. NARASIMHA RAO v. SAI VISHNU, MINOR, THROUGH MOTHER[3], wherein it was held as follows in paragraph No.8: “8. The law is well settled that though an unregistered document is admissible in evidence for a collateral purpose, an unstamped or insufficiently stamped document cannot be looked into for any purpose.” There is no dispute about the proposition of law laid down in the above case that insufficiently stamped document cannot be looked into for any other purpose. In this case, the instrument does not fall under Section 2 (14) of the Stamp Act, there is no need to pay any stamp duty and penalty. Hence, the order impugned is set aside and the trial Court is directed to receive the document subject to proof and relevancy. 8. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________ K.C. BHANU, J October 01, 2010. KTL [1] 2004(6) ALT 802 [2] (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 161 [3] 2005 ALT 653