M Ravinder Reddy S/o M Papi Reddy v. '1. Seri Balreddy S/o. Late Ramakrishna Reddy

petition under section I 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the principal Drstrrc jr'::.'r";.;T,',il:::,:1;:#,, r,.tnu, p."""on g. i n o s No 1 1 3 or 20 1 8,* "., Counsel for the petitioner: Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI NARESH REDDY CHINNOLLA The Court made the following: ORDER SRl. AJIT SHARMA l I I l l THE HONOT]RABLE DT.JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI CTVIL REVISION PETITION No.33E0 of 2024 ORDER: This civil Revision Petition is hled by the petitioner / plaintiff aggrieved by the order dated 09.08.2024 passed in I.A'No.458 of 2024 in O'S'No' l 13 of 20lSbytheleamedPrincipalDistrict&SessionsJudge,Sangareddyfor demarking the document marked as Ex.Al5.

2.ThebrieffactsofthecasethatledtofilingoftheCRParethatthe plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale - cum - development agreement dated 01.03.2015. As per the averments in the suit, he was a builder having experience in land development and construction and with an interest to develop the suit schedule prop€rty by constructing residential villas, he approached defendans I arld 2, who were brotherc, owners and possessors of the land in Suwey Nos.l20lEE md 122/AA and in Survey No-120/A2 and l22lA2 respectively to an extent of Ac 3-01 guntas each situated at Velmela village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Sangareddy District.

3. The defendants 1 and 2 initially agreed to sell one (01) acre cach and to give the remaining land for development to the plaintiff. But subsequcntly, the defendant No.l charged his mind to sell one acre of land and gave his entire 2 Dr.GRR, J crp_3380_2024 extent of Ac.3-03 guntas for development. The defendant No.2 agreed to sell one acre and gavc the remaining land for development. Thus, the defendant No.2 executed an agreement for sale ofone acre and development agreement for the remaining extent. At the time of entering into the agreement, the defendans I and 2 inlormed the plaintiff that there was a suit pending in respect of the suit schedule property and stated that after clearing the pending suig they would execute the registcred development agreement - cum - General Power of Attomey (for short "CPA") and also the sale deed in favor of the plaintiff. The defendants I and 2 delivered physical possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintift. lle also started the development activities by levelling the land by investing hugc amounts. Subsequently, some persons objected the ongoing work stating that the suit land belonged to them. The plaintiff came to know that the delcndants I and 2 cleared the pending cases, but were trying to alienate the suit prope() to defendants 3 lo 7. When the plaintitr demanded the defendants for execution of registered development agreement and sale deed, the defendants dodged the maftef As such, the plaintiff got issued the legal notice and tiled thc suit.

4. The dclindants also filed written statement and the matter was proceed ing l'or tria I 3 DT.GRR J crp-3380-2024

5. During the course of trial, the plaintiff filed his eviderice affidavit and filed Exs.Al to Al4. The defendans I and 2 as well as defendants 3 to 7 raised objection for marking the proposod exhibits Al ard A2 titl€d as developrnent agreements contending that they were compulsorily registerable documents and could not be admitted in evidence without registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908.

6. The trial court i-e. the leamed Principal District & Sessions Judge' Sangareddy passed a detailed order in the evidence of PW'l itself observing that Ex.Al would create rights in favor of the plaintiff as well as defendant No'l in the constructions to be made. The language was categorical and the rights and liability of the parties were defined' It was a fnal development agreement iself between the parties and would not envisage entering into a future agreement at a later point of time as contended by the plaintiff and observed that the proposed exhibits A I and A2 were compulsorily registerable documents and that they could not be admitted into evidence. Bu! however, considering that Ex'A2 also contains the agrcement to sell one acre of land to the plaintiff' held that the said part of the contract could be severed from the rernaining contract and E'x'A2 could be marked only to the extent of the terms relating to the contract of sale' as per the judgment of the Hon'ble APex Court in KB.Saha and sons Privale 4 Dr.GR&J crp_3380_2024 limited v. Development Consattanl Limited , ils per the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Acl l90g for collateral purpose. 7' The learned Principal District & Sessions Judge further observed that since Al and 42 were tendered in evidence, they had to be impounded in terms of Section 33 olthe Indian Shnrp Act, lE99 and directed the offrce to forward the proposed exhibits Al and 42 to the District Registrar for assessment and collection of stamp duty and penalty. However, he gave a clear finding that Ex.Al was inadmissible in evidence and Ex.A2 was partly admissible. Thereafter' the said documents were sent by the District Regishar to the court directly after coliecting necessary stamp duty and penalty. 8' Meanwhilc' there is a transfer of judicial officers and a new officer was posted. The said documents were marked as [:xs.Al5 and .416 by the Court without observing thc earrier orders. Subsequentry, the defendant No.l filed I'A'No'45g of 2024 fbr demarking Exs.Ar5 and Ar6 stating that on 13.02.2024, ail of a sudden pr\'' l (praintitf) produced the above said documenb, which were sent for impounding without serving any copy of the impounded documents on him by concearing rhc order passed by rhe court with regard to the admissib,ity of the documents as per law and prayeg to rc,jcct the said documents marked as Exs.Al5 and Al6 '(2oos) 8 scc 56.1 -.

9. The plaintiff filed counter to the said application stating that at no point 5 Dr.GRR, J crp_33E0_2024 of time the Court declared that the document sought to be marked as Ex.Al was inadmissible and Ex.A2 as partly admissible. The Court had not made any endorsement on the documents as rejected as inadmissible as contemplated under Order XIII Rule 6 of CPC. After heming both sides and after detailed inspection of the documents, the Court categorically decided to send Exs.Al and ,A.2 to the Offrce of the District Registrar for the purpose of impounding and collection of deficit stamp duty and penalty before admitting the proposed documents as evidence. The court addressed reminder leEers to the District Registrar Office for refilm of the said documents vide docket order dated

13.09.2023 and 30.10.2023 respectively. The Office of the District Registrar, Sangareddy, after assessment, collected the deficit stamp duty and penalty vide proceeding No.1313 o12023, retumed the Exs.Al and A2 documents directly to the Court vide letter dated 28. 10.2023. On receiving the said documents, the Court passed a conditional order on 22.01.2024. As a last chance for marking the documents, the case was posted to 13.02.2024. On the said conditional order, he appeared before the Court and the said documents were marked as Exs-Al5 and 4.16 in the presence of the counsel for defendants I and 2 and defendants 3 to 7 and none of the counsel objected for marking the said documents. He had not produced any new documents for marking, which would require service of notice. The inadequacy of stamps was a curable defect I 6 Dr.GRR, J crp_33t0_2024 and the Stamp Act provides a procedure to rectifi the defect and the said defect was rectified by following due process of law and thereafter only the documents were marked as Exs.Al5 and ,{16 and they could not be rejected under any circumstances.

10. The trial court on considering the contentions ofboth the leamed counsel passed the impugrred order observing that the order passed by the Court would clearly reveal that the proposed Ex.Al (marked as Ex.Al5) was inadmissible and proposed Ex.A2 (marked as Ex.Al6) could be admitted into evidence to some extent for the purpose of proving the existence of the contract for sale of immovable property. The docket also would not disclose that the counsel for the defendants were also present at the time of marking, as such demarked the document marked as Ex.Al5 and as the Court already held that Ex.Al6 was partly admissible, dismissed the petition in respect of Ex.Al6 for demarking the Heard Sri Ajith Sharma. learned counsel for the petitioner - plaintiff and Sri Naresh Reddy Chinnolla, leamed counsel for respondent No.l and Sri I. Ramesh, learned counsel lor respondent No.3

12. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per Order XIII Rule 6 of CPC, an endorsement was reqyired to be made by the .ludge rejecting the document as inadmissible. Ilut no such endorsement was made by the 7 Dr.GR&J crp_33t0_2024 concerned Court. The collection of deficit stamp duty and penalty was a curable defect and the same was cured by impounding the same. After rectification, the documents could be taken into evidence. The Court at no point of time had declared the documents tendered in evidence as inadmissible, if so, the same would not have been sent for the purpose of impounding. The Court failed to interpret that not only the agreement of sale, but all other documents are also contracts, which could be admitted as evidence in a suit for specific performance and relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in R ematatha v. Kashthurf and S.Katadevi v. V.Rsomasundaranf .

13. Leamed counsel for the respondent No. I on the other hand contended that the petitioner approached the Court with unclean hands by misrepresenting the facts. The trial court while passing an order on 16.03.2023 categorically held that Ex.Al was inadmissible, but since it was produced before the Cour! which had to be impounded, accordingly, directed it to be sent to the District Registrar for assessment of stamp duf and collection ofpenalty. Even after collection of stamp duty and penalty, Ex.Al being inadmissible could not be marked, but the petitioner in the absence of the counsel for defendants by misrepresenting to the Court that Exs.A I and 42 were sent for impounding, got marked the same. The trial court believing the version of the petitionels cormsel marked the same as Exs.Al5 and ,4'16. The earlier orders passed by the trial court were suppressed 'z2023 (10) SCC 725 t 2010 (5) scc 401 8 Dr.GRR, J crp_33E0_2024 by the petitioner while marking the said documents. The petitioner without serving a copy of the impounded documen! misled the Court and got it marked, which would show his misconduct before the Court. The docket order dated

13.02.2024 would clearly show that the counsel for the defendants was not present when Exs.Al5 and 416 were marked. It was the bounden duty of the counsel for the petitioner to bring to the notice of the trial court about the earlier orders passed on 16.03.2023 holding that Ex.Al was inadmissible. The finding of the trial court that Ex.Al was inadmissible was not challenged by the petitioner. The trial court on considering all the aspects passed the impugned order rejecting the marking of Ex.A t 5. The same was just proper and legal and prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition.

14. Learned counsel for respondent No.J also adopted the arguments of the leamed counsel for respondent No.1

15. Now the point for consideration in this CRP is: Whether the order passed by the trial court demarking Ex.Al5 suffers from any legal infirmity and whether the same is liable to be set aside?

16. On a perusal of the record, it would disclose that when Exs.AI and 42 are tendered in evidence by the plaintiff, a detailed order was passed by the trial court on 16.03.2023 by considering all the clauses in the development agreement observing that the derrlopment agreement would create rights in 9 Dr.GR& J crp_33E0_2024 favor of the plaintiff as well as the defendant No,l with regard to construction ofvillas on the schedule property, wherein the rights and liabilities of the parties were defined and the said agreement would govem the relationship between the parties and the terms of development of the schedule property and their righs in the development and opined that they were compulsorily registerable documents. Bu! however, considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court n KB.Saha and sons privae timiled v. Development Consul:tant Limited (cited supra), wherein it was held that an unregistered document could be used as evidence for collateral purpose under proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Ac! 1908 and if the collateral transacrion was independent of, or divisible from, the transaction to the effect which the law required registration, the same could be admitted in evidence, held that Ex.A2 was partly admissible. The trial court categorically held that Ex.Al was inadmissible and Ex.A2 was partly admissible. However, for the purpose of receiving stamp duty and penalty, directed the office ro send borh rhe documens ro the District Registar for assessment and collection of stamp duty and penalry.

17. The said order was nor challenged by the petitioner - plaintiff. Both the documents were sent to thc District Registrar lor collection of stamp duty. After receiving the same on 13.02.2024, the same were marked as Exs.Al5 and .416 without observing the earlier order passed by the Court on 16.03.2023. The impugned order of the learned Principal Districr & Sessions Judge, 10 Dr.GRR, J crp_33t0_2 024 Sangareddy arso wourd discrose that the defendans were not present at the time of marking the documents and the docket order dated 13.02.2o24arso wourd not disclose their presence. The counser for the plaintiff could not take advanfage of the absence of the defendant on the said date and without appraising the court about its earrier orders passed on 16.o3.2o23,getting them marked shows the mischiefplayed by the counsel for the petitioner before the trial court. 18' The contention ofthe leamed counser for the petitioner that there was no endorsement made on the document as ,tejected as inadmissible,, as required under Order XIII Rule 6 of CpC and that they would not har,e sent the proposed Exs.Al and 42 for the purpose of impounding, when the same were considered as inadmissible does not hold any merit, as the same was also answered by the triar court in its order passed on 16.03.2023 itserf fhe triar court srared that since the documents were tendered in evidence, they had to be impounded in rerms of Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, lg99 for receiving the stamp duty and penalty and categorically mentioned that since proposed Ex.A I was inadmissible, it would be impounded and sent to the District Registrar for zlssessment of stamp duty in terms of Section 3g(2) ollndian Stamp Act. tg99. It also specified that for receiving proposed Ex.A2 into evidence, stamp duty and penalty had to be paid' As such, on the representarion made by the counser lor the plaintiff only, sent the pbpned Ex.A2 to rhc Disrricr Registrar ror assessment and collection of stamp duty and penalh_. i Dr.GR&J c rp_33E0_2024 19. As a general rule, the objections with regard to the admissibility of a 1,1, document have to be raised at the time of marking and once the document is marked as exhibit in the Court it cannot be demarked. But, in the present case, objections were taken by the defendants at the time of tendering Exs.Al and A2 into evidence and the said objections were considered by the trial court and held Ex.Al (Ex.Al5) as inadmissible and Ex.A2 (Ex.Al6) as partly admissible. Leamed counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in REemalatha v. Kasthuri (cited supra), wherein it was held that: "10. Thus, as per proviso to Section 49, an unregistered document affecting the immovable property and required by Registration Act to be registered may be receiied as evidence ofa contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter-fl of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered document.

12. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the proviso to Section 49 came to be inserted vide Act No.2l of 1929 and thereafter, Section l7(lA) came to be inserted by Act No. 48 of 2001 with effect from 24.09.2001 by which the documents containing contracts to transfer or consideration any immovable property for the purpose of Section 53 of the Transfer of Properties Act is made compulsorily to be registered if they have been executed on or after 2001 and ifsuch documents are not rcgistered on or after such commencement, then there shall have no effect for the purposes of said Section 5lA. So, the exception to the proviso to Section 49 is provided under Section l7(lA) of the Registration Act. Otherwise, the proviso to Section 49 with respect to the documents other than referred to in Section l7(lA) shall be applicable.

13. Under the circumstances, as per proviso to Section 49 ofthe Registration Acq an unrcgistered document affecting immovable property and required by Regislration Act or the Transfer of Property Act ro be registered, may be received I l i i i I i I I I J 72 Dr.GR&J cIp_33t0_2024 as evidenc€ of a contract in unoer chapter-ri ""i' i,r?' .lJ.i,il, *H.iT:f ffi lT:T trlT{1ffi,:flff#fi}$iirf rt*;fr question woutd tlrr-*+i ;TT:'u Agreemenl to Sell in perSecrion lztla'l-o4#Lrll$*orv or document as rttsrSEatror Act. Therefore. in rhe facts and "ir.rrr*LJi i'#ffii#Hl*,,;r,kff;ff{"'"txLni;:FT: l'*:#r',f1..,*,*m.+*tft lsmf Thus, the Hon,ble Apex Court held that the agreement ol.sale would be admissible as evidence in a suit for specific perfornance. The leamed principal District Judge, accepting the said proposition laid down by the Hon,ble Apex Crurt held Ex'A16 as partly admissibre. These observations with regard to the admissibiliry of Exs.Al and A.2 (Exs.AI5 and Al6) are nor challenged by the plaintilf and they became final. 20 rn rhe affidavit fired in I'A'No'45g of 2024, rhe peririoner (plaintiff) specifica'y stated that at no point of time, the court herd or declared rhat the document had to be marked as Ex.Al was inadmissible and Ex.A2 was only part ry admissible' which is farse. He also stated that whire marking lrxs.Al and l\2 as Exs.A l5 and A I6 on 13.02.2024,the counsel for defendants I and 2 and defendants 3 to 7 were also present and not objected for marking the said documents , which was also proved to be false by the observation of.the trial court. r+,herein it stated that as f€, $" docket order dated 13.02.2024, rhe 13 Dr.GRR, J crp_33E0_2024 counsel for the defendants were not pr€sent at the time of marking. Thus, the petitioner - plaintiff filed a false affidavit before the court and got ma*ed Exs'Al, and 416 suppressing the fact of the earlier orders passed by the court with regard to the admissibility of the documents and got marked the same in the absence of the counser for the defendants in a mischievous manner. As such, the trial court rightly demarked Ex.Al5. This court does nor find any illegality in the order of the trial court for demarking Ex.Al5. 2l' In the resulg the civil Revision petition is dismissed confirming rhe order of the leamed Principar District & Sessions Judge in I.A.No.458 of 2024 n O.S.No.113 of 2018. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneots applications in this petition, if any shall staod closed. To //TRUE COPY// Sd/- T. TIRUM DEVI ASSISTANT RE STRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. The Principal_District and Sessions Judge, at Sanga Reddy 2. One CC to SRl. AJ|T SHARMA. Advocaie rOpUCt " 3 pne CC to SR|.C. NARESH REDDY, ROvoiare 1OhUC1 4. Two CD Copies RP w HIGH COURT DATED: 0310112025 ORDER CRP.No.3380 ot 2024 1$E SrA 16: 6( 2 4 FEB 2025 ,t r)p.SPATcH =O .{ t CRP IS DISMISSED \t, i*t^t'