NNR,J vs Ravi Enterprises ralr. by its Proprietor Ketlarisetty G tumurthya '

petitioner/defendant No.2, assailing the order dated 23.02.2021 in t.A.No.S7 of 2020 in O.S.No.30 of 2010 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civit Judge, Jangaon (hereinafter referred to as "trial Court"). Z. Heard Sri Jalli Kanakaiah, learned senior counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.2 and Sri A.S.Diwakar, leamed counsel representing Mr.Ashok Reddy Kanathala, leamed counsel for respondent Nos. I to 3. Perused the record- For the sake ofconvenience, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in O.S.No.30 of 2010.

3. The brief lacts of the case in a nutshell are that the Plaintill No.3 purchased 7 acres of agricultural land with a mango garden in Sy.No.534, Palakurthy Vitlage, Warangal in the year, 1999 from Defendant No.2 under simple sale deed. He subsequently settled

3.2 acres each to Plaintiffs No.l and 2, who have been in peaceful, 2 NNR,I t R. P.No-549 oJ202l continuous possesslon, developing the garden. Thei narnes were mutated in revenue records, and pattadar passbooks a 1d title deeds were issued. (i) Defendant Nos.l and 2 allegedly colluded to ;rab the land and filed a false appeal before the RDO to cancel i-re plaintiffs' revenue records. Delendant No.4 arbitrarily ,; ncelled the passbooks without hearing, violating natural justice. I laintilTs filed a revision befbre the Joint Collector, which is pendinrl (ii) The delendants also attempted dispossessiorl (,r 07-02-2010 and 29-02-2010. Plaintifls obtained an ex-parte inte n injunction in O.S.No. I612010. Given these repeated threats and ilegal actions, the ptaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of title, ,rotection of possession, and injunction in O.S.No.i0 of 2010 b,: bre the trial Court against the dcf'endants.

4. Pending suit, the defendant Nos.2, 5 and 6 there n have filed an application under Section 151 of C.P.C to demark I xs.A2 to A9 in l.A.No.87 o1'2020 in O.S.No.30 of 2010 before tr : trial Court contending that the subject suit has been instituted f,r declaration of title and consequential injuncrion. The plaint ti has been 3 NNR,I CR.P.No.549 of 2021 examined as PW-l and has marked Exhibits A-l to A-9. Among these, Exhibits A-2 to A-9 are inadmissible in evidence, as they are hit by Section l7(lxb) and Section 49 of the lndian Registration Act, as well as Section l5(a) of the Indian Stamp Act and sought for deciding the objections raised therein.

5. Per contra, the respondents/plaintiffs therein filed counter denying the averments of the petition in toto contending that the petition is not maintainable in law or on facts. The defendants had the opportunity to object marking of the Exhibits A-2 to A-9 when they were tendered but faited to do so, and after lapse of more than two years filed an application under Section 151 of CPC, seeking to demark Exs.A2 to ,A9 in I.A.No.87 of 2020 in subject Suit without bona fides. Furlher contended that the defendants can cross-examine PW-1 regarding these documents, and having been aware o[ their existence, especially since an earlier suit filed in the year, 2000 was withdrawn belbre instituting the subject suit, and they cannot now dispute them, further contended that the documents are genuine, and prayed to dismiss the application with exemplary costs. 4 NNR,J ( ) P.No.549 of2021 -lhe leamed Judge, having considered the c'r rtentions of

6. both the parties, considering the written arguments iled by the learned counsel for respondents and relying upon Ie decisions cited therein in (t) M.Rajagopal Retldy vs State Bank "f India and others,t (2) Anitha vs R.Rambilas,2 (3) P'Sriniyas Reddy vs P.Madhav Yadav & Otherss, (4) Buddha Jaadecsvara Rao vs Ravi Enterprises ralr. by its Proprietor Ketlarisetty G tumurthya ' taking into consideration of thc provisions under St;tion 36 of StampActandSectionlT(1A)ofRegistrationActarrlSection49 of Registration Act and Order Xlll Rule 3 of CP(' t ls observed that according to the piaintiff, Ex.A2 is a simple salc leed' Ex'A3 to Ex.A9 are payments of receipts of sale consideratil I and as per record Ex.A2 to A.9 are already impounded as per the order dated

14.08.2018 in I.A.No.959/2018 before the Court' Ex'A2 was impounded by the District Registrar, Warangal Rtgarding the marking of the said document i.e., Ex'A2 an objecti'r was raised on the ground that no registration was effected to ile same and being an unregistered document, for which the learne i Judge came ' .qtn 2006 Andhra pradcsh 264 ' lool (o) AIR (Ap)ll ' l0l0 (4) Ar.ll 554 (TS) ' 2ot7 (2) 1\Lr136 --- 5 NNR,J C.R.P.No.s49 of 2021 to a conclusion that as the exhibit is simple sale deed, it cannot be de-exhibited, instead the said objection would be decided at the time of disposal of the suit. Further, the learned Judge held that the transaction has not been concluded and the pleadings of the respondent/plaintiff also shows that after obtaining Ex.A2, on later date after making total consideration, the possession of the land was delivered to the father of the plaintiff No. l. Thus, the trial Court held that Ex.A2 is a simple sale agreement. As per Section l7(1A) oi Registration Act, a sale agreement executed on or after the commencement of the Registration and other related laws (Amendment) Act, 2001, it requires registration. This amendment came into force on 24.09.2001, and whereas Ex.A2 was executed on 09.07.1999 and as such it does not require registration. Accordingly, the leamed Judge of the trial Court dismissed the l.A.No.87 of 2020 in O.S.No.30 ol20l0 without costs. Assailing the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed

7. Leamed counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.2 contended that the impugned order is contrary to the facts, law and probabilities of the case and the trial Court has passed the impugned order beyond the scope and mandate of Order XIII Rules 6 NNR.J ' .R. P.t\o.549 of 2021 3 and4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. He lurl ler contended rhat the trial Court failed to appreciate that Section 3( of the Indian Stamp Act does not cuftail or in any manner affect he powers of the Court under Order XIII Rutes 3 and 4 CPC to rl ect irrelevant or inadmissible documents and Order XIII Rule 3 'l PC expressly empowers the Court to reject any document at any sri se of the suit if it considers the document irrelevant or otherwis( inadmissible, after recording reasons. Further specifically c() ltended that Exhibits A I to A9 are inadmissible in evidenct as they are unregistered documents, which are compulsorily rcg,! erable under law. The Court below ought to have assigned propcr r rasons on the admissibility issue; instead, it mechanically t irmissed the I.A.No.87 of 2020 in O.S.No.30 of 2010 without duc c rnsideration. Hence, he prayed to set-aside the impugned order r rd allow the Civil Revision Petition.

8. Now the point that arises before this Court lbr, onsideration IS ll/hether tlte said docunrcnt, which is marked. unae' ExA2 already accepted by the learned trial Court, deserv s to be de-cxlibited for tlrc reasons cited b), the petitionerhl, fendant No.2? 7 NNR,J C.R. P.No.549 of202l

9. Admittedly, the subject suir is filed by the respondents/plaintiff Nos.l to 3, seeking to declare plaintiff Nos.l and 2 as absolute owners of the suit schedule property by declaring the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Jangaon vide proceedings dated 21 .11.2009 in Rc.No.l/157212009 as null and void and also seeking consequential injunction restraining the defendant Nos. 1 and 2, their family members, workmen, associates, servants and friends etc., from entering into interfering in any manner in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property.

10. The plaintiffs' suit is based on agreement of sale, which is said to be a 'simple sale deed,' the very document that is under dispute in this civil revision petition. Leanred Senior Counsel vehemently contended that the said Ex.A2 and Exs.A3 to 49 cannot be marked or taken into evidence because they are unstamped. Moreover, permitting the plaintifls to pay the stamp duty now would effectively expand the scope of the suit and allow them to seek specific performance in the future. Thus, the competence of the trial court to admit them alter collecting stamp duty is being questioned. .--

11. In fact Section 35 of the Stamp Act reads as fr,l ows:- 8 NNR../ R.P.,\o.549 of 2021

35. Instruments not dul amoed inqdm issible i n ei d ence cc. No instrumcnt churgeable with duty shall be admined in eri, etce for ttrtl, purposc by any person havittg by law or consent o" porlies uulhoti1) to reccivc evidence, or shall be acted upott, rei,i tarcd or dulhenticsted b1'any suclt person or by any public ofJice, uulcss such inslrurue t is duly stamped: Provided that fu)uny such in.rtrumcnt [shqll] [Substituted by Act 2l of 20( ( ,\ection 69,.frtr "not being an instrument churgeable with a duty rtot t'ccading te uye paise only, or a bill of erchange or prontissotn rt, c. shall, :iubjecl b alljust exceptions," .J be admiued in evidence on 1 c 'nrcnt o.[ thc ltty tt'ith which thc same is clrurgcablc, or, in thc t:t t of un instnurcnl insufiiciantly stamped, of the amount rcquiretl i ukc up such duty, bgethcr with a penalty offve rupees, or, v,hen tq ; rcs the qnounl o.f tlte propcr duty or defcient porti<tn thereof e,x;, atts llve rupets, ofo sum aquul to ten times such duty or portio : (!)u,harc uny person .from whom a receipt could ttt vc lr(en deuunded, hus givan an unstantped receipt und such ti e,ipt, rf stantpcd, vould bc admissible in evidence aguinst him, I'n,urh reccipt shull be udmitted in evidence againsl him on pa.y,tn nt ol a penolty ofone rupee by the person tendering it,. "'tomped .tcd h.v k)A ltue a conlruct or agreement of any kind is 4iL corrc.,;pondance con.sisting of fivo <tr more lettcrs and anv t t ' oJ'thc lellers bear.s the prctper stamp, tha contract or ugrcentenr hall bc tlecmcd to be duly stamped; folnothing hcrein contained shall prevent tlte udnisskl of uny in\lrwncnt in evidatce in any proceeding in u crininal Cot ,, otho- thun u proceeding under Chapter XII or Chapter XXX14 of r\ [Collc of Crininul Procadure, 1898 (5 of 1898)] [ Now sce the .odc of Crintinul Procedura, 1973 (2 of 1974).J: 41t1olhmg herein conlqined shall prevent the udntissiu ltf uny inslruDrcnt it1 any Court v,lrcn such inslrument hus been exeu,t, d by or on bahalf of the Goyernment, or where it bears the certirt& I of tlrc Collcctor as proyidcd by section 32 or any other provision of rh s Act. As per Section 35 of the Stamp Act, the responsibilin ies upon the Court or the competent authority to ensure that i I unstamped 9 NNR,J C.R.P-No.549 of 2021 instrument is not admitted in evidence without collecting the proper stamp duty and penalty. In the plesent case, the leamed Judge has already collected the requisite stamp duty and penalty for the other exhibits, namely Exs.A3 to A,9. With respect to Ex.A2, the learned Judge has already taken steps to impound the document in accordance with law.

12. In view of Section i2 of the lndian Stamp Act, contention raised by the learned senior counsel cannot be accepted. It was argued that the documents in question ought not to have been marked since possession was allegedly delivered under Exhibits A3 to ,A'9. However, the learned counsel lor the respondents/plaintiffs has rightly pointed out that, upon perusal of Exhibit 42, there is no indication whatsoever that posscssion was delivered pursuant to that document. Consequently, the question of registration of the said document does not arise.

13. Though the entire sale consideration has already been paid and the documents have been impounded, the question of non-payment of stamp duty does not arise. Consequently, the question'-of registration also does not arise, as the vendor has NNR,I t R.P.No.549 of202l already received the entire sale consideration. It is i rther pointed l0 out that the other documents, except Exhibits 43 to 19, are merely receipts evidencing payrnent and receipt ol' thc balance sale consideration by the vendor, who is the father of plair ,iff No. I and the father-in-law ofplaintiffNo. 2. A bare reading o' hese exhibits shorvs that norvhere delivery of possession is mention .d. In view of the thct that stamp duty has been collected and the d,r:uments have been impounded, the plea for de-exhibiting the docu nents on the ground that they were unstamped is untenable irr I cannot be accepted.

14. Coming to Section l7(lA) of the Registration r.ct, although a salc agreemcnt executed on or after the commenc:rnent of the Registration and Other Related Laws (Amendme n ) Act, 2001 requires regrstration, the said amendment came into .:rce only on

24.09.2001. F.xhibit A2 was executed much earlier, r,r 09.07.1999. Therefore, the learned Judge rightly observed that tr.r I ibit A2 does not requlre registration. As such, the contention t 1 the learned senior counsel that the document requires registrat t n cannot be accepted --

15. The learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the NNR,J C.R.P.No.549 of 2021 decision rendered by the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in the case of Boggavarapu Narusimhulu v. Sriram Ramanaiah and others5, wherein, it was held as follows:

4. (u) Nttt thc i tportdnt question i.s "ll'ltctltcr tlr 2nd lcltndont ttttt rqisc onv objcction in rcgartl kt thc tdntissiltilitv of thc c.rhrhit Al ott lhc gntuncl llkrt it lu$ bccn not drtlv r('gistct'cd dcspitc tht, firct thut tht. .';uid lrxumcnt htu rrlraodv becn uluittatl in cyitlcnca urul vus in.t'irct c'.,;lribitul titlruul un.1, ollcction luntg tlrc corrrsa ol triul ht'litra tl( lriul Court.)"

4. (h) 11rc laornatl cttttual lor tfu ltluinti[/.s ttttukl conrcrul t]rut c.tthibir A I vus olrcud,- csltihitul orul $(\ udtattd rt c'vidcncc lxfit c tlrc triul ('otot tuttl that ul th( lintc of rrurrkirut no ollrcti<ttr tttt.t t'tri.;ctl il ragunl to rhc issua of ragi.\lrutit,tl und. thcrcfirt'. tlrc 2nd lc/Lndonr cdnnot nor|ruisc uny ohjection itr rcgunl ur tlrc udni.stibilitv o/ tlr cxhibit ,l I rn lhe grorrncl thut it lru.s ltcn tt<tt dul_t, rcuistcrcl IlL pluccd rcliunca on scction 35 o/ thc lndion Stunp ilct .xlticlt rcods us undar.- "llrhcrc on tnshltment hus lrcn olDilci in cvidcttcc. tudt urlni.vsiotr shall rut, (xccpt o5 ltroirlctl in r(.tion 61, bc tollcrl irt .!uc.\tion ut uny,.stttgc of lhesonr suil or proc.'ctlinu on thc glttttul lltot lhc in.\lnu ull hu.s rtut bccn dul.v sttrrytd". I la further sulnritctl thut ottcc thc tlocunrcttt i.t utlntitted in cvdcncc rightly or nnnd), tith or xilhrnl tttr ollccliott, rcjcction tl IltL, .\otnc lutcr bv thc L'outt ts inpcrntissihlc. [Ic hod ulso ltllccd rt,liurrca on thc rutio in thc ltcisttttt in tltc cu.\c ol Juvcr C'hurul nnl othar.s v. Pukhntj Surutu (supro1. Itt lhis rL'prtrtcl ce.\c tltc fitcts sho\t, lltut thc hutdit rcn' tturrketl us cthihit.s P I ancl I'.2 uttd lrurc thc cttlorsi:tncnt "(ltuitt(d in tt,iluttt:" rrtulcr llrc .\ignoturc ol thc Court. lhtvint cottsidcrctl thc :uid fict tnd othcr fuL't.\. thc Ilon"bla Suprcntc ('otrrt ltckl u.s fitllotts: It is rtot, llrcrcfitrc, onc of tlto.\'c cascs v-hcra u docltntcnt htt.y ltctn inutlt'crlcnlly ruluillal, \a'illk,ut lhc Court t14t\,ing il: uind tu thc qtrc.\liotr of rt,s udtttissthility Ottca q douutt<ttt ltus baan uurl;cd us ut L'xltibit rtt thc cusc ttrtd thc triol lrut procccdad ull uloug on tltc /ot,tin,: tltut lltc locut cnt vus un cxhibit in tlta ctsc tttttl lrus lran u:icl bt, tlv l)ot lic.\ in c.\Ltntinati()n tttul crtt.ys-c.rutninuti.t tr/ lhdr rll/rrcr.rc.r, S j6 5:or+1:; eLo rzo t2 NNR,J R.P.,\o.549 of 2021 (t llt( 5kt,nl) ,,1ct conL's into opcrution. Oncc' u tktcutttt 't lrus lvcn ultnittttl ttt ctiLlcncL', tts uforcsoul, it ts nol ol)ct1 cilh<:r t thc fiiul Court itv ll ot ttt t Cotrt ofAl4tcul or rcvitnn ltt go hclutt I ltqt ortlct. ,\ut.h ort oaltr is net ol tho.\c julL<:iul orda's tllich ur,, I tltlc /rt ht' lr.l, lhc .\tytc (iturt or u Coyt.t | .\ul)(1(rr rc't,it'tttd t)r tri\(l 1 lt,1 lhtrrLtt,t. on tltL, .\ott1c u;pcct lhc ltttntad cottt ', 1 for lhr-' rc:lxnlLnr pluccl n,liuncc on unotfur (lccision oJ tt, Hott"llc SupronL ( tutrr tn tltc cutc o/ 11.l'I:. littkrtLultqfu t , t,ti,t I' , / , i / \ r r i I / /l / iukl l. P. [!:!]tl)lL tt!l -4tt't,,, t lu tltis .1t rrf4ttl4rt I / \ r r , '. tltcisiott tlt lktrt"hlL' Suprcurc Court lruving rctcrrcd tt ttr aurlicr Itti.tiott trtLtl htltl o.t lrlloyts ' 'lltt lrrtt.tt,tl trtottLl lit tlt<' ltlt,tuhutt rcsltortltat h,t. ,.tliaLl rnt "lltt llr\ i',)it).i,1 (,tilt,,ltL \lttttoit 1.,.,:rq!!,,1 \lLrltit:, 1t,,, ,torlt,.! irt \llrlx)t't t)l lttt stritrtttr.tirtn th(rt (r tlocltu(nl ttttt utlltrssihlL t c.titlt'rtLt,. tltrnrglt l,nttqltt ot) n cot d. hu: b lta ctclutlul lhnt cotlstti ttion ll'( dtt ttrtt ltrtrt'tttlt dt.\l)ttl(' iilh tlrc p1)po-\ilion of lur,50 luil I *n 1t tltc' ultt,.,t'.tttttl tttst. /lotL'tL'r, tllc pr(,.\ttnl otlc i.t tt trt.sc ttltich ttl;.fitr tlt Lolt-('(t l,t)\tlt/)t1 Q/ lutr l,tittu ttttttlt prcCiSc- OrJintrily un ) i,,cltotl tt) tl\' &l r\.'tl)tlttt rl tLtdcncc shorrlrl hc lukan ultcn it is ,L t'Lrad qud nttt :utlttltrattlv l-|rc tthlcction,; us h admi,sstltility <tf & t rrtcuts itt cvidotc( uutv ltr clussificd ittto tytt chtsscs:- (i) an objal t t tltot thc Iot'rtnttttt thich t.t \t)ulltt to lrc ltnt,cd is itsalf intl t siblc in t"r'ilL'ntt. unl tti) nltcrc tltc objcctio tlocs ttot t,t..tia odnttssilrlttt t)f tht lotutttcnt in ctidattcc but i,t dirL,clctl t) \ttr(1.\ th( ut t o/ lttrttt/ ullr'gittg tlrc -\unl( lo l)c itrygll/111'or itstlli,t ttt h tht t rlptttnanl hns ltcn nit[], ' 4! "L,j /i/1/ ( r/\(. )tttt'Ll,' l)L (tlti( L'rhibit". rttt olltLtLort tt\ to it.\ e(lDtis:iibilit_v i.\ tlot c.\ciu I t/ and i.\ t\uiluhlt io ltt' rui.tctl Lt'(,t1 eI d lelcr slagc or clttl it] t t)pcul or rtti.tiott ltt Iltr l(tttct Lost,, tlt(, olltc.tiort sluu tl lt rukcn t ,fitrc tlu, (\'idrtttr t\ lttult,rttl ttnl ott.a tlt( docu tc t h,Js ltcett t ( i cd in (t'idL'nL( unl nliu.k(d l\ Ltn L'xhiltit, thc oltjt,ctuut thut it : ottld rtot httvc l'<'t'tt rtilnit!cLl tn (tid(tjcc or thul llrc notlc udolttcd,r,t pntrittg lht dotrrurLttt i\ irtcLultt ('duttot l)( ullrtvctl kt hc ruiscl rt ny, ttttut, sltl)sLqu(ttt to thc tnurking ol tl:t., Llocunrcnt as un cxhil,t. ltc lul(,t. pr()pt)!rttol i.t tr trtlL ol /iir plu.1,. 'flu crucit tc.:.t i.: t I .tltcr trn olicLtn . tl tulicD Ltt tlt( uplropnut(,poutt of.lina, uttultl ltti, ,,nul ttl lht 1t,1y1y t.tultti .g lltt i'r,ttlctrcc lo ctu-c lhc tlcfcct uutl t.L.\,)t t(, !Lt-lt nuxlt ol'lutto/ u' tvttrll hc ragufur 'l'hc ontis.\ion to <tlirr t ht,co,ttr:t fatul lttctttlt' ltt; it,.t 11,,,,,rc thc purt.t antillad b objact olloy, lrc prtt 4, It' dtrirtg tltt,tt'rLhttct tt) (rIt t)tl u d:i.\ultptiotl thut lhe o1;1t ) itc,ptt.tr i.t not .rt't-tr,tr: ofutirl thL uodc ol ltrrxl. On tht,othcr hun I l)ro,t!)t 13 c.R.p.N(,.s4e Xf;r olyactiou doc.s not prajudice tha party tctldcring the cwlcncc,.fbr t,,ro rcuxtn:;; firstll,, it cruhlcs tha Court to appl1, its mincl und prorutunca it.t dccisrotr on thc qucstiotl o/ otlruirsibilit.y thcn tntl thcre; (nd .tccondl+,. in tllc ct'ctlt tt/ linding of tlrc Court on the ucrlc rf proqf .\oughl lo bc (loptcd going ogLtitlst thc partv tctldrrin\! thc c.t,idcncL:, thc opl)ortunit.r, rl sccking indulgcncc of tltc Court -/ir pcrntitting u rclrrlur tnoda or ntcthod qf Jtnn[ und thcrcbv rauovutg lhc ohjcctrort trrised ht' tha oplto.titc pott),, i.\ avuiluhla to th( pq ft.l. l(udins tltc cvirlcrtcc. Such prutcticc ttnd ltroccdurc i:; fiir tu both thc partics. OLtt ol lhc l r.o t.y'1tcs o/ objcction.t, rcfcrrcd b ltcrciuthovc, in tlrc lotcr ctrsc, /iihtrc to rui:;c a pro U)I und tinrcl), objacti(,n atnu t.\.to ttltivct- of thc ttctc.ssitv for insisting on -[onrutl pt.o<|. t4[ u docutttent. tltc rktcutnt,nl it.tcff t hiclr is souglll kt bc prot,cd ltcirrg ulmis:iblc in cvidcntc. ltt tltc firsl cu.tc, ttctluie.sccnce vutLld bc rut hur lo ruising lhc r t hj cct i r trt i n s ultt: ri or (' o urt. lltllottinc thc ltrcsitlcntiul {uilunce vhiclt i.s, hitttling it ntu:;t he htltl lh(l lh( u)t1t(ntion of thc patitioner/2nd tlcfetrckurt is ltur,'ing urt ucccl)lo blc t crit. -l kl) ['urthcr in the ltcisir.tn i1 tlrc cusc ol"tha lh, /trul .lL.qtrttrit,t,t {)iiiLit. ! r i121,1111,1le1'llt11tr I .\t,,rLpttllt. ,\LriulLq4ri l.tnlittt lltul_, u l:ull llttrch ry' rltit- (burt hcltl as./blkrus. !l is nr,rt vall :cttlctl, by ct long .terics o/ tlcci-riott.r of oll Ct.turt.s.. to vhich it i.y utlnccc:i.utry n rellr, thul thcrc i.\ u hrt"^ic tli[fo"cttcc l)(l\t cL\t thc nrxlc 0l pruo/ of u tktcume nt utul its utlrttissihility. Tltc twttlt'rtl pnn/ o.l u dt)cunant i.\ o mutter ol pncedurc y,hile irr Ltd tit.til,ililv is u tr(tttcr (t r^ttb.\tuntiva lqw,.such d.\ tllc llcsi.\trdrio ,.lct or thc Stantp Act or othtr spccific Jtrovision. lI thc objcction i: tl ro thc udnti.;:;ibility of the clocunrcnt, thcn thc u(ra nnkitg ol thc loutttLtlt tts (n arhillt, tlocs nol prcclutlc uny objcc.tiou hcing roi.sul lutct u\ 1o it.s t tthttissiltilitv. Bttt ,so .fot os Illc Drodc o/ pnxt/ i:. Lrtntc'rrtc'd. it is tcll-scttlcd lhut, iJ utt objccli.on o\ tt) thc ttu)dc t.\ nt)t ntiscl tt tlrc slugc u hcn tlrc docunenl t.s nturkatl us cvitlcnct' itt thc (tt.\( rutd('t O. l -1, R. 1 C.P.C. such utt objcction cunttol ha rui.sul ut o n.v .\u l\ cq t t c tl l .\ I ulaa

1. (c1 In viett'of tlr hiruling rutios in the bcforc ma ronccl twt rlacisrttn.t \l?ru, in thc rcll consitlercd .''ieu d thi.s Coul, thc lntl lafi'ndtutt ctrn rrtise un objectk) in reguxl to the utlni.ssibility rf tlrc cxltibt ,l I on thc grcund lhut it |rus bacn not dulv rcgi.\tcrcd inspilc o/ rlt( .fuL.t tltut tht ytitl locuttcttt lrus ult cudr; bcctt ctltibitcd us trhibit .11 or i; odui ctl in cvidenca tlurin.g tlrc coursc of triul bc/bre tha 14 NNR.J ( R.P.No.549 of 2021 Court [)clon, os tlrc suid c,bjaction is us kt ulmis.stL. I doc'Lutttttt untl i.r u tuttttcr ol .sub.yltrttt it'c lau vrz., tltc Rcgi:1, Thc triul Ctttrt /itr.lul to tttkc rurc o/ tlrc l)inding ratio-\ i,t I ol thc [{on"hlc Srrlrrtntc Cotrrt urul thc liull Bcrch tlc,:i t Corrl trnd fu urrittrl ul (ut itlcott-cct cutclusion to lhc rflrl d<tcuttrcnt i.s' c.tltthitcd \itht)tt1. unv objcctiott, thc uggriA c prccludcrl fiotn t'tti.siD! un oltjcction uj b tlrc utltnissil i doct.tntcnt lfunrrh thL' rktttcr rL'lulcs tr) sttbjt(ntiva ld\,t' -,t Rcgislrution ,,lct or tlu: Skttt4) /lct or othcr spccilic pnti. scqucl to tlrc ul.tot,t tlisctrs.tion coultlcd with rc6ons, it.ti) ntcrcll, becurrsc tlrc dttctttucttt htts ltaan murl;cd a.s "utt ,,t objcctktrt trs lrt it.y utltnis.riltilit_,- is rutt ctcludetl in tlrc cosa ( t. i.t ttvilohlc to I't rui:crl ct'cn ut u luto'.\ldgc or cvcn il rct'i.t'ion lltoL'lirt, tltt,intprgrttLl onlcr *hich rull: fitr irt', liublt: to ltt: t.ct trsrlc. r), o/ tltc knt Act. : lccisi<nt l put.tv is t.v oI tlr ion As u lctrl's thut \ibit", en tltltarI or /L'rcncc is regarding demarking the documents, which are al I ady marked. This Court has carelully considered the submissions ( f the leamed Senior Counsel as well as the relevant material on record. The leamed Senior Counsel placed reliance on the dt:r ision of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Ji yderabad 1n Boggavarapu Narasimltulu v. Sriram Ramanaioh and. others, asserting that the principles laid down therein are apc icable to the present case. In the present case, the leamed St:; .ior Counsel contended that no relief of declaration of title can be c aimed under Ex.A2, and that the Courl's consideration has to be cJ 1fined solely to the relief of specific performance. It is observed tlit t the learned Judge has rightly left this aspect open, to be decidcr by the trial Court while adjudicating the suit t5 NNR,I C.R.P.No.549 of 2021

16. The leamed senior counsel relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vinod Infra Developers ltd vs Mahaveer Lunia & others6, wherein the Apex Court held as fo llows: Adntittedly, the appellant is lhe owner of the subject property. As stated in the plaint, the uppellant received Rs. 7.5 crores lrom Respondcnt No. I in 2014 through cheques, in consideration of vhich, unregistered power ofattorney ancl agreement to sell were c.teculcd, purportetlly bttscd on u bourd resolution. Sub-sequently, those t|<tcuments uere rewked by lhc appelhnt on 24.05.2022 und 27.05.2022 respectively. Despite the revocqtion und the fact thut lhc docunents w,ere unrcgistered, Respondent No. I executed sale dcetls on 13.07.2022 and 14.07.2022, which were registered on 19.07 2022, in hisfawur antl infavour of Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. As per thc scttled law, in the ab.sence of registration, xtch Lk)cuments do not confer valid authorily to transfer title. Sections l7and19of thc Registration Act, 1908, cleqrly state thut unregislered documents required to be regi,stered are inqdmissible in evklence for lhe purpose of conveying title or completing a sale trunsuclion, untl can only bc admitted for collaterul purposes or in u suit fitr specific pe1fi.trmunce. Placing reliance on the above principles, the learned Senior Counsel contended that the issue as to whether Ex.A2 amounts to convcying title or not cannot be adjudicated by the trial Court at this stage, particularly since that aspect has already been expressly kept open by the trial Court to be decided at the time of final adjudication of the suit o 2025 INSC zz2 NNR,J ('. '.P.No.549 of 2021 17. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.l to 3/pia ntiffs relied l6 upon the decision rendered by the erstwhile High Cou t of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Meda Anjumma and unothtr vs Vikram Chinq Veeraiuh and othersi, whcrein, it was held as li llows: In that buckground, the Suprene (.our t luul down that exc( I case of objection relqting b clcficicnc.t of stamp dltty, the tr (. during evidence taking stage, ceu uurk ull the document: t,t nole of a y objection rcgtudinq odnrrs.sibilitv. 'l'he Aper C t, held that iIun objection is ralul rcgutding:;lunp duty, thc t hqs to be decided beforc proccding further prcsumobl" regard to Scction -.16 of the Stqnlp ,,lct fhc Suprerte Cr t pointed oul lhol such proccdrtrt' hut ltto (d|utttuges, numel,-. , for tiul *'ould not bc wuslt<l lt.t, ruising arch objeclt t secondly, the uppellate Court uttt dctcruirtc llrc correche;: view ldkcn b! the trial Court, il opptrtl or ntvision is./iled uga Jinal judgnent. Such pructicc vlould not causa uny prejudi,:, parlies lo llrc litigetion us pointcd out by lhe Supreme () t. following observati<tns are appositc i this conte\I, (paras I I o[ SCC) n is an u'chuic pructicc thul (luritry thc evidence-c't stage, whenever any objcction is ruisad rcgurding udmiss I uny uterial in evidence thc Courr dot.s ntt prucaed.funhet pas,sing ordcr on strch obJcctio . ' in llte 'Courl 'king a rt al.to eslion huvirtg 1al.;o rc ttnle rs and of thc nsl tltc to llrc t. The 'tnd 11 lectittg 'lity,2f itlloltt The Court is competent to de-exhibit a document wh() it has been admitted erroneously, eveu il thc docunrent is otherwis : admissible in evidence. However, in the present case, the learnel Trial Judge has already addressed these aspects. 'lhe grounds ri ised by the revtslon petitioner has been duly ansrvered by the frial Cour1, relying on the decisions cited supra. Exhibit A2 is or ly a simple 7 2006 scc online AP 107 I] NNR,J C.R.P.No.549 of 2021 sale deed without possession. The Trial Court rightly admitted it in evidence and marked it as Exs.A2 to A.9. The Trial Court has properly taken thesc exhibits into consideration

18. Relying upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.Katadevi vs V.R.Somasundaram & others8, wherein, it was held as follows: " . an unregistared sulc dccd of un immovable property of the valua tf Rs. 100/- unrl nutre tottld hr "dnitted in eyidence a-s evidence of u contract in a xtit .[or slteci/ic perfitrmctnce of the contract. Such an unregistcrcd sole deed cun ul.s<t be ddmitted in evidence as an evidence of any collaterul rrqnluction not rcquired to be effected by regislered dourment. lllt(n un unrcgistcred sale deacl is tendered in evitlence, not as cvidcncc of u contplatctl xtla, hut as proof of an oral agreement of sale, the deed con be receivetl in evidence making an endorsement lhal it is received onlv as avidance oJ an oral ugreement of sale under the proviso to $glyltn 49 of 1908 Act...." As such, it cannot be treated as a simple sale deed; it is to be treated as a simple agreement of sale. Under Ex.A2 full sate consideration not passed, it cannot be treated as simple sale deed; it can only be treated as an agreement of sale. Relevancy of document kept open for trial Court for the purpose of deciding the ownership or tille ol the parlics. 8 AIR 20IO SUPREML(-OUR I I65,I NNR,J '' ?. P.No.549 of 2021 19. With the above observation, the Civil Revisi< n Petition is l8 disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous petitior.rs, pending if any, shall stand closed. SiI )/. B. REKHA RANI ASSIS TANT REGISTRAR I I //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 Z 3 4 The Principal Junior Civil Judge at Jangaon' One CC to Mr. J KANAKAIAH Advocate [OPUC] oneCCtoMrA.S.DIWAKAR,AdvocateRepresentinllIVlrASHOKREDDY KANATHALA, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD CoPies \y HIGH COURT NNR, J DATED: 1711112025 ORDER CRP.No.549 of 2021 ii: -s 14 ,, ,6 IEC 2tu5 i/ Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petitior is Disposed of No Costs @ \