P. L. NARASIMHA SHARMA, J.

( 1 ) DEFENDANT is the petitioner in this revision. The revision is filed questioning the order of the Principal District Munsif, Srikalahasti, in O. S. No. 406 of 1984, in and by the terms of which it was held that Ex. A-1, dated 2-10-1978, is only an agreement to sell and not a sale-deed. the relevant facts are as follows:- respondent-plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 2-10-1978, which was marked as Ex. A-1. The defendant raised the objection that the document, Ex. A-1, is not an agreement of sale, but it is an out-right sale-deed in and by the terms of which the property was conveyed and that therefore the said document is inadmissible in evidence. The learned trial judge held that the document is only an agreement of sale and not a sale-deed and therefore it is admissible in evidence. Questioning the said order this revision is filed by the defendant.

( 2 ) SRI P. S. Narayana, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner-defendant contended that a reading of the document makes it clear that it conveyed absolute rights in the property to the plaintiff and therefore it amounts to conveyance and the same, not being stamped or registered, is inadmissible in evidence.

( 3 ) TO appreciate this contention it is necessary to extract the relevant recitals in the document, Ex. A-1. They are as follows: (Emphasis supplied)

( 4 ) THE document not only contains, in the preamble the description as agreement of sale but also indicates the same while describing the executant. It is clearly stated that the executant was executing only an agreement of sale. Again, at the end of the body of the agreement and before the schedule it was stated that till then any agreement or any other conveyance was not executed in respect of the said property and the executant undertook to execute and register a sale-deed pursuant to the agreement of sale. It is true that the document contains a recital, as extracted above, to the effect that the executant sold the property and put the plaintiff in possession of the same. It also contains a further recital that thereafter neither the executant nor his heirs have any right in the property. But these recitals are not decisive by themselves. When a document is construed, the entire document will have to be looked into for ascertaining the intention of the parties.- Each of the clauses by itself is not conclusive and the intention of the parties will have to be gathered on a reading of the entire document. On a reading of the relevant recitals which are extracted above, I am of the opinion that the executant intended to execute an agreement of sale and not a regular out and out sale-deed.

( 5 ) SRI P. S. Narayana, the learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant, contended, on the basis of the rulings in Hanumantha Rao vs. Narayanaprasad and K. Santhakumari vs. K. Suseela Devi, that the mere recital, that a regular sale- deed will be executed at a later date as and when the plaintiff demands for the same, does not take away the character of a document as being a sale-deed.

( 6 ) THERE is no quarrel with the proposition contended for by Sri P. S. Narayana. The judgment in K. Santhahimari vs. K. Suseela Devi itself stated that in construing a document the cumulative effect of all the recitals contained therein will have to be taken into consideration to find out the intention of the parties to the document. Neither the description of the document in the preamble nor the recital that a further document was contemplated to be executed by itself is decisive. . The court will have to take into consideration the cumulative effect of all the recitals contained in the said document. Applying the aforesaid principles laid down by the authorities in construing the documents, i have no doubt in my mind that the document in question viz. , Ex. A-1 is only an agreement of sale. Not only in the preamble but also in the body of the document the executant

Click Here to Read the rest of this document