( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dt. 18-7-2000 in O. S. No. 337 of 1998. By the said order the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge sustained the objection of the counsel for defendant for marking the suit document and held that the suit document is unregistered sale deed and hence it is inadmissible in evidence.

( 2 ) THE facts in brief are as follows:the plaintiff-revision petitioner (hereinafter called the plaintiff) filed a suit against the respondent-defendant (hereafter called the defendant ) for specific performance of agreement of sale dt. 15-4-1984 executed by the defendant in respect of agricultural land in S. No. 201/1 admeasuring Ac. 1. 60 cents situated at Gillella village, Proddutur Mandal. The plaintiff also sought the relief of permanent injunction. During the trial, when the plaintiff sought to mark the document dt. 15-4-1984 the counsel for the defendant raised objection that the suit document is sale deed and for want of registration and proper stamp duty, the same is not admission in evidence. Therefore, the trial Court heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff as well. It was contended for the plaintiff that though the entire sale consideration was paid and the property was delivered possession, in view of the covenant that the defendant would execute sale deed in favour of the plaintiff as and when demand, the same cannot be treated as sale deed. The trial Court after referring to the recitals in the document in question came to the conclusion that the document being unregistered sale deed is inadmissible in evidence. The trial Court referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kashinath Bhaskar v. Bhaskar Vishweshwar (AIR 1952 SC 153) and judgments of this Court in K. Sarojamma v. G. Muni Lakshama (1981) 2 Andh WR (NRC) 47; Tirunam Gurappa v. Naidu Ramana Reddy (1992) 1 ALT 628 and Bangaru Ramathulasamma v. Yedam Masthan Reddy (1998) 4 ALT 796 : (1999 0 AIHC 1 ). Relying on Bangaru Ramathulasamma s case (supra) held that the document in question cannot be marked. Aggrieved by this order, the plaintiff filed this Civil Revision Petition.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner Sri M. N. Narasimha Reddy submits that as the suit document contemplates another document of transfer giving right to the plaintiff to demand a regular sale deed, the same cannot be treated as sale deed. Being not a sale deed or deed of conveyance the same is not required registration under S. 17 (2) (v) of the Registration Act and he submits that in any event being a suit for specific performance, the document in question is admissible in evidence in proof of the contract. He relied on S. 49 of the said Act.

( 4 ) NOTICE before admission was ordered and after receiving notice Sri G. Srinivasa Reddy field appearance. Sri Sadasiva Reddy, representing Sri G. Srinivasa Reddy submits that proviso to S. 49 of the Registration Act does not apply as the plaintiff filed the suit stating that the suit document is an agreement of sale. He also submits that S. 17 (2) (v) of the Act has no application to the facts of this case.

( 5 ) WHETHER the document based on which a suit is filed is a sale deed or agreement of sale is a question that repeatedly comes up before the trial Court during the trial as well as at the time of disposal of the suit. Therefore, I propose to examine the legal aspects of the matter in some detail.

( 6 ) AFTER referring to suit document the trial Court held that the same is not an agreement of sale and that it is unregistered sale deed and hence inadmissible in evidence. The trial Court drew support for such view by relying on the judgment of this Court in Bangaru Ramathulasamma s case (1999 0 AIHC 1) (supra ). Though the judgment of this Court reported in Sarojamma s case (1981 (2) Andh WR (NRC) 47) (supra) and Thirunam Gurappa s case (1992 (1) ALT 628) (supra) were adverted to, the trial Court followed the judgment in Bangaru Ramathulasamma s case (supra) holding