( 1 ) THE Civil Revision Petition is filed under article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by an Order dated 3-12-2004 made in I. A. No. 1053 of 2004 in O. S. No. 1030 of 1999 on the file of the learned Principal junior Civil Judge, Nellore.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is the plaintiff. He filed the suit in O. S. No. 1030 of 1999 initially for permanent injunction restraining the respondent-defendant from interfering with the suit schedule channel. Thereafter, it was amended to that of seeking mandatory injunction for restoration of the channel. The present I. A. No. 1053 of 2004 was filed by the respondent-defendant under Order XVIII rule 4 read with Section 151 of the Code of civil Procedure to determine the admissibility of understanding/agreement dt. 26-10-1987 marked as Ex. A-6 stating that it is hit by the provisions of the Stamp Act as well as the registration Act; therefore, it cannot be admitted in evidence. The petitioner-plaintiff resisted the same on the ground that the issue was already discussed and was confirmed by the Presiding Officer earlier and further, the document is only a letter of undertaking and it does not require stamp duty and penalty. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court came to the conclusion that Ex. A-6 understanding/agreement is with regard to watering and electricity charges and Avula Venkata Seshaiah agreed to give the channel in his land in which the said seshaiah and the plaintiff would have rights to watertheir lands. Therefore, Ex. A-6 created interest in favour of the plaintiff and thus it requires to be sufficiently stamped and registered as per the Registration Act. Since it is insufficiently stamped and not registered, it cannot be admitted in evidence and, therefore, the same was excluded from evidence. Challenging the same, the present revision is filed.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the Court below had commifted an illegality and irregularity in excluding Ex. A-6 from admitting in evidence. The Court below failed to see that Ex. A-6 does not create any right/interest in any immovable property; therefore, Sec. 17 (1) (b) of the Registration Act has no application. Ex. A-6 is only a Memorandum of Agreement regarding usage of water and payment of electricity charges. The observation made by the Court below that Ex. A-6 appears to be a sale and, therefore, it is registrable is misconceived. Further, even if the document is not sufficiently stamped, the Court could have permitted the petitioner-plaintiff to impound the document. Further, the Court below failed to consider the Judgment reported in State v. Navjotsandhu @ Afshan guru in proper perspective. Even otherwise, the Court below could have considered this aspect at the time of deciding the suit itself and not in the I. A.

( 4 ) WHEREAS, learned counsel for the respondent strenuously contended that the court below has rightly construed Ex. A-6 having created interest in the immovable property (channel), it requires to be registered. After the closure of the evidence of either side, this I. A. was filed to determine as to the admissibility of Ex. A-6 in evidence. Therefore, the Court below has not committed any error in disposing of the I. A. at that stage.

( 5 ) I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also perused the impugned Order and other material made available on record.

( 6 ) A Xerox copy of Ex. A-6 (Telugu) has been placed before this Court. A plain reading of the same shows that it is an agreement as to creation of a channel in the land of the respondent/defendant for the purpose of irrigating the lands of the petitioner/plaintiff. The lands of the defendant are located in between the lands of the plaintiff. The understanding under Ex. A-6 is that the petitioner-plaintiff would be permitted to formulate a channel from the lands of the respondent-defendant to enable him to irrigate his land on

Click Here to Read the rest of this document