T. NARASINGA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition by the plaintiff-petitioner is directed against the order of the District Munsif Tandur whereby under Issue No. 8 he held that the agreement dated 21-12-1960 is valid and admissible in evidence in spite of non- registration and though not duly stamped.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff laid a suit alleging that the suit Shops bearing Nos. , 3-5-50 to 52 situate in Nayapet. Gandhi Chowk Tondur, were mortgaged by his father for the repayment of the loan of O. S. Rs. 8,000. 00 under a document dated 9th Bahman 1358 Fasli. The income from Property is said to be Rs. 2000. 00 a year and therefore the mortgagee has realised nearly Rs. 50. 000. 00 and as such the defendant-mortgagee is liable to render an account and in that manner the mortgage debt stood discharged. He thus laid the suit for redemption of mortgage and for vacant possession of the properties and for mesne profits.

( 3 ) THE defendant-mortgagee resisted the suit inter alia on the ground that the mortgage amount was not paid as Stipulated after three years and before five years as per the said document and that the mortgagor obtained further Loan of O. S. R. 2000/ -. with interest at 9 per cent per annum in Khurdad 1358 Fasli and that amount also was not paid. In 1960, at the instance of the mortgagor, the accounts were settled. The defendant is said to have paid the municipal taxes and incurred other expenses for the maintenance and repairs of the premises. Thus. on settlement of the accounts, it was found that in all a sum of Rs. 15,600-28 IG. was due by December, 1960. As the mortgagor was said to be not in a position to pay the amount, he requested the mortgagee to put an end to the mortgage transaction and to close the same by accepting the mortgaged property itself. Thus. it is alleged in the written statement that the. mortgagor relinquished the equitable right of redemption in favour of the defendant by executing the agreement in the year 1860 and in this manner the defendant is in possession of the suit premises not as a mortgagee, but as owner since 1960. It is thus contended that the mortgage transaction had come to an end in the year 1900 only and the mortgagor had relinquished his right of redemption by his acts. He relied upon the document dated 21-12-1960.

( 4 ) ISSUE No. 8 had come to be framed to the following effect:-- "whether the agreement dated 1960 filed by the defendant is invalid and inadmissible in evidence for want of Stamp duty and registration?.

( 5 ) IT is seen that the document relied upon by the defendant is executed on stamp of Rs. 51- and is not a registered one. The contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner was that though under S. 60 of the T. P. Act, the right of redemption can be extinguished by the act of the parties, such an Extinguishment must be effected by registered document, the document in question is therefore inadmissible for want of registration. The further contention is that the plea of Section 53-A of the T. P. Act is not available to the mortgagee and for that reason also the document is inadmissible. The other contention is that even under the Proviso to S. 49 of the Registration Act, the document in inadmissible even in regard to possession or in support of any collateral matter. It was also the contention of the learned counsel that the plea of S. 53-A was not specifically set UP in the written statement. It was, on the other hand, contended that even in the absence of;, registered document extinguishing the right of redemption, a contract of sale in writing reciting the purchase of the right of redemption would enable the mortgage t, set up his title by way of defence and that the provisions of S. 53-A of the T. P. Act can be invoked by him and the facts constituting such a plea have been stated in the written statement. me further contention, that even under Section 49 of the Registration Act the said document, though unregistered, can be admitted to prove the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document