( 1 ) THE matter is coming up for admission today. It is represented that Sri L. J. Veera Reddy had lodged a Caveat on behalf of the respondent/ plaintiff.

( 2 ) SRI V. R. Reddy, learned Counsel for the revision petitioners had made submissions at length to the effect that this is a suit for refund of consideration and for the relief of specific performance. The learned Counsel also would submit that in the light of the amendment introduced by A. P. Amendment Act 4 of 1999, an agreement of sale of the value of the immovable property of more than Rs. 100/- is compulsorily registerable under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 and in view of the nature of the suit, the proviso to section 49 of the Act cannot be made applicable. The Counsel also would submit that even otherwise the document in question is liable for stamp duty and penalty.

( 3 ) PER contra, Sri L. J. Veera Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the respondent-plaintiff would submit that in view of the lack of marketable title or defective title, the respondent/plaintiff had thought of instituting the suit for refund of consideration and also for damages and in the light of the nature of the prayer sought for in the suit, the document in question would definitely fall under collateral transaction though the same cannot be received under the former portion of the proviso to Section 49 of the Indian registration Act, 1908.

( 4 ) IN view of the fact that both the counsel made submissions at length, the main CRP is being disposed of at the admission stage.

( 5 ) RESPONDENT herein, who is the plaintiff in O. S. No. 117 of 2003 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur, instituted the suit for refund of consideration and also made a claim for damages. The said agreement of sale dated 5. 2. 2003 was engrossed on a stamp paper worth Rs. 110/ -. Two objections had been taken for marking the said document. The first objection is that inasmuch as it is an agreement of sale of a value of more than Rs. 110/-, it is compulsorily registerable under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 and yet another objection is that the stamp duty is liable to be paid as per Article 6-B of schedule-1a of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The learned Judge made an elaborate order and ultimately concluded that it is admissible in evidence. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition is preferred.

( 6 ) THERE is no serious controversy between the parties that in view of the A. P. Amendment Act referred to supra, the agreement of sale exceeding the value of rs. 100/- requires registration under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908.

( 7 ) SECTION 49 of the Indian registration Act 1908 deals with the effect of non-registration of documents required to be registered. Section 49 (c) proviso reads as hereunder: (c) be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power, unless it has been registered : provided that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by this Act, or die Transfer of property Act, 1882 to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under chapter II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument.

( 8 ) THIS question had fallen for consideration in Jawadi Koteswara Rao v. Sonti Sambasiva Rao, 2004 (1) ALD 629 = 2004 (4) ALT 614, wherein the learned judge of this Court held at Paras 5 to 7 that section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 reads as follows: 17. Documents of which registration is compulsory : The following documents shall be registered, if die properly to which they relate is situated in a district in which, and if they have been executed on or after the date on which, Act No. XVI of 1864, or the Indian Registration Act, 1866, or die indian Registration Act 1871, or the Indian registration Act, 1877 or this Act came or comes into for