( 1 ) THIS revision petition is filed by the first defendant in O. S. No. 284 of 1989 on the file of the District Munsif, Gudur questioning the impugned order dt. 22-2-1996 holding that the disputed document dt. 20-11-1981 sought to be marked by the plaintiff as evidence on his behalf was held to be an agreement of sale and not a saledeed and therefore admissible in evidence.

( 2 ) THE first respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit which was filed for the relief of permanent injunction relating to the suit property against the present revision petitioner, who is the first defendant and also against the second and third defendants in the suit. The plaintiff is alleged to have purchased the suit property from second and third defendants under the disputed document dt. 20-11-1981 which is described as an agreement of sale. During the course of evidence of the plaintiff the said document was sought to be marked as evidence on his behalf and the learned counsel appearing for the first defendant who is contesting the suit raised an objection for marking the said document on the ground that the document is in the nature of a sale deed and not a mere agreement of sale, that it is unstamped and unregistered and as such it is inadmissible in evidence. The lower Court rejected such objection by the impugned order relying upon the decision of this Court reported in Tirunam Curappa vs. Naidu Ramana Reddy and holding that it is only an agreement of sale and not a sale deed. Questioning the said orders the present revision petition is filed by the first defendant.

( 3 ) HEAD both the Counsel.

( 4 ) IN order to see whether a document is admissible in evidence or not, the nature and contents of such document are to be looked into. The suit document is dt. 20-11-1981 under which the plaintiff is alleged to have purchased the immoveable property for Rs. 10,000 / - from the second and third defendants. The salient features of the said document are that the entire sale consideration of Rs. 10,000/- was received by the vendors and possession of the property was also delivered to the plaintiff under the said document. It is further mentioned in the said document that eversince the date of that document the vendee, who is the plaintiff shall have absolute rights in that property in his own right. It is also mentioned that in case the plaintiff requires registered documents to be executed in future such document can be obtained. It is clear from such averments in the disputed document that though it is styled as an agreement of sale and though it is further averred that the vendee can have a registered sale deed executed in case he desires to have such a registered document in future, the terms and conditions of the document clearly reveal that the rights in the property sold under the document were transferred to the plaintiff under the said document creating absolute rights in his favour eversince the execution of that document and possession of the property was also delivered to him and the entire sale consideration was received by the vendors. Under such circumstances, it can clearly be said that the disputed document is one which creates and declares the right to immoveable property in favour of the vendee after extinguishing the right and title of the vendors under the said document itself. Section 17 (1) (b) of the Indian Registration Act (for short the Act ) says that the documents which purport to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any right, title or interest of the value of Rs. 100/- and upwards to or in immoveable property shall be registered. Clause (v) of Section 17 (2) however provides that a document need not be registered if the document itself does not create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any right, title or interest of the value of Rs. 100/- and upwards in any immoveable property but merely creates a right to obtain another document which will, when executed, create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any

Click Here to Read the rest of this document