B. SUBHASHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 30-10-2001 passed in Review Petition No. 1366/ 2001 in LA. No. 1111/2001 in O. S. No. 2033 of 1996 on the file of XIX Junior Civil Judge, city Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereby the learned Junior Civil Judge reviewed the order dated 20-8-2001 passed in LA. No. 1111 / 2001 filed under Order 13 Rule 3 of CPC read with Section 49 of Registration Act.

( 2 ) THE petitioners herein are the plaintiffs in O. S. No. 2033/96. They filed the suit against the respondents herein for perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. It is their case that the suit schedule property originally belonged to Hamid ali and it devolved on his sons viz. Imam Ali and Mohammed Ali by way of succession. There after Mohd. Ali sold the suit property in favour of V. Gopal, S/o Laxmaiah under a sale deed dated 17-9-1953. The name of v. Gopal was mutated in the revenue records and patta pass book was also issued in his name in respect of the suit property. Subsequently in the year 1971, they purchased the suit property from the said V. Gopal under a sale deed dated 24-4-71 and since then they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The sale deeds dated 17-9-1953 and 24-4-71 were impounded in the year 1994 itself and endorsements were made to that effect on the said documents. These two sale deeds were marked as Exs. A-3 and A-4 through P. W. 1. Later on the respondents/defendants filed LA. 1111/2001 under Order 13 Rule 3 CPC read with Sec. 49 of Registration Act seeking rejection of unregistered documents marked as A-3 and a-4. The learned Junior Civil Judge by order dated 29-8-2001 allowed the application of the defendants partly and directed the plaintiffs to take steps for impounding the documents within ten days from the date of the order. Subsequently D-1 and D-3 filed review Petition No. 1366/2001 under Order 47 Rule l (c) and Section 151 CPC seeking review of the order dated 29-8-2001. The learned Junior Civil Judge allowed the review application and rejected the sale deeds which were already marked as Exs. A-3 and a-4 through P. W. 1. Feeling aggrieved by the order, the plaintiffs have filed this Civil Revision Petition.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners/ plaintiffs contends that sale deeds dated 17-9-53 and 24-4-71 though unregistered can be admitted in evidence for collateral purpose as provided under proviso to Sec. 49 of Registration Act. He placed reliance on the following decisions of our High Court in support of his contentions : (1) PSG Industrial Institute v. R. Randhir Singh, (1997) 3 andh LT 473, (2) S. R. Taramma v. D. Narasaiah, 1977 0 ALT 107 and (3) ummadi Subramanyam v. Ukka Dhanamma, 1999 (5) ALT 26. In the first cited decision our High Court held that going by the plain terms of the language used in proviso to Section 49, it is clear that the unregistered document can be received as evidence only to substantiate the plea of partperformance of a contract whether it can be a contract of sale or lease or mortgage. The document can be looked into only insofar as it serves as evidence of the part performance of a contract. So also, it can be received as evidence of collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument. If the transaction is such that it requires to be registered in order to give effect to the same, the document cannot be relied upon to prove the transaction as such. In the second cited decision our High Court held that unregistered sale deed can be admitted in evidence for the purpose of proving possession in a suit for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff. In the third cited decision our High Court held that unregistered sale deed can be received in evidence in a suit filed for specific performance provided it is impounded by the Court or the Collector under Section 33 of the Stamp Act.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for

Click Here to Read the rest of this document