Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : Y.V.NARAYANA
Been Dayal - Appellant
Versus
M.Sambaiah - Respondent
Decided On : 07-13-95
REGISTRATION ACT - SECTION 17(1)(B) - LEASE AGREEMENT - COMPULSORY REGISTRATION - ADMISSIBILITY IN EVIDENCE - COMPROMISE DECREE - INCORPORATION OF TERMS - CREATION OF RIGHT OR INTEREST IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY - STAMP DUTY - ARTICLE 31 OF SCHEDULE I-A.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of a lease agreement executed by the defendants. The defendants contended that the lease agreement was bogus, illegal, and unenforceable, and that it was not admissible in evidence as it was not registered. The plaintiff argued that the document was not a lease deed but an agreement, and therefore it was not compulsorily registrable. The trial court directed the plaintiff to pay the stamp duty in accordance with Article 31 of Schedule I-A of the Stamp Act for the purpose of receiving the agreement in evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the document in question was a lease agreement and was compulsorily registrable under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act. The court further held that the document was inadmissible in evidence as it was not registered. The court also held that the compromise decree in the present case did not incorporate the terms of the lease agreement and that the lease agreement created a right and interest in immovable property in favor of the plaintiff.
Issues: 1. Whether the document in question was a lease agreement and was compulsorily registrable under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act? 2. Whether the document was admissible in evidence as it was not registered? 3. Whether the compromise decree in the present case incorporated the terms of the lease agreement? 4. Whether the lease agreement created a right and interest in immovable property in favor of the plaintiff?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the document in question was a lease agreement and was compulsorily registrable under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act because it created a right and interest in immovable property in favor of the plaintiff. 2. The court held that the document was inadmissible in evidence as it was not registered. 3. The court held that the compromise decree in the present case did not incorporate the terms of the lease agreement. 4. The court held that the lease agreement created a right and interest in immovable property in favor of the plaintiff.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order of the trial court passed in I. A. No. 762 of 1993 dated 25-8-1993 and allowed the C. R. P. 3168 of 1993, but without costs. The court also dismissed the C. R. P. No. 3653 of 1993, but without costs.
( 1 ) C. R. P. No. 3168 of 1993: this revision petition is filed by the defendants in O. S. No. 524 of 1993 on the file of the II Additional Munsif-Magistrate, Warangal against the order dated 25-8-1993 made in LA. No. 762 of 1993.
( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are: The plaintiff (respondent herein) filed the suit for specific performance of lease agreement dated 30-9-1988 executed by the defendants (petitioners herein ). The plaintiff made the following averments in the plaint. He is the tenant of the defendants, living in their house on a monthly rental of Rs. 500/ -. Subsequently the defendants filed R. C. C. No. 26 of 1983 before the Rent Controller, Warangal for the eviction of the plaintiff. Ultimately the matter was settled, resulting in the execution of the lease agreement dated 30-9-1988 executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff suspected the bona fides of the defendants, he got issued a suit notice dated 31-6-1993. The defendants managed toavoid receiving of the same. Again the plaintiff got issued the notice on 7-7-1993 which was received by the defendants on 8-7-1993. The defendants sent a reply notice on 10-7-93. Therefore the plaintiff filed the suit. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff also filed i. A. No. 762/93 for a temp or ary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession of the suit mulgi by execution of the decree dated 19-9-88.
( 3 ) THE defendants filed counter denying in general the plaintallegations and raising the following contentions. The defendants got onlyl /4th share in the suit property. Therefore the contention of the plaintiff that the suit property belongs to the defendants is not correct. The alleged lease deed is bogus, illegal and cannot be enforced. The defendants never agreed to let any portion of the suit property to the plaintiff. They never tried to avoid receipt of the suit notice. The suit for specific performance of alleged contract is not maintainable. The plaintiff is bound by the decree in R. C. C. No. 26 of 1983 and cannot go behind the decree. There is no prima facie case or balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not come to the Court with dean hands. Therefore they prayed that the petition may be dismissed with costs.
( 4 ) WHEN the plaintiff sought to mark the lease deed, the defendants raised objection on the admissibiliry of the said agreement on the following grounds. The document is an agreement of lease. Hence it is compulsorily registrable under Section 17 of the Registration Act. Besides that, since it is a lease deed, the stamp duty payable under Article 31 of Schedule I-A of the Stamp Act is the duty as a conveyance for consideration equal to the amount or value of the average annual rent reserved; but the stamp duty paid is only Rs. 5/- which is inadequate. Therefore the lease deed cannot be admitted unless the required stamp duty is paid. The plaintiff contended that the document cannot be considered as lease deed inasmuch as the plaintiff did not enter into the premises as tenant through that document. Since it is only an agreement the stamp duty payable is Rs. 5 /- under Article 6 of Schedule I-A. The Court below, after hearing the Counsel for both sides, directed the plaintiff to pay the stamp duty in accordance with Article 31 of Schedule I-A of the Stamp Act for purpose of receiving the agreement in evidence. Aggrieved by the said order, the defendants filed the present revision petition. C. R. P. No. 3653 of l993:
( 5 ) THIS revision petition is filed by the petitioner-tenant against the order dated 8-10-1993 made in E. A. No. 213/93 in E. P. No. 167/83 in R. C. C. No. 26 of 1983 on the file of the Prl. District Munsif, Warangal.
( 6 ) THE brief facts leading to filing of this revision petition are as under: The respondents filed R. C. C. No. 26/83 seeking eviction of the petitioner-tenant on the ground of default in payment of rents etc. Before
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
