Back
2019 Supreme(AP) 121
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
T. RAJANI, J.
Gomuguntla Leela Krishna Murthy - Appellant
Versus
Kancherla Koteswaramma and Ors. - Respondent
CRP No. 770 of 2018
Decided On : 24-06-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ghanta Sridhar
For the Respondent: T.V. Sri Devi
Headnote:
Registration Act - Section 49 – Transfer of Property Act – Petition filed OS which is suit for specific performance, as already observed, docket order is not reasoned order, which does not even reflect objections raised by other side, OS filed for recovery of possession and OS is filed for specific performance, in which unregistered agreement of sale becomes relevant and admissible. Though suits are clubbed; aspect of relevancy cannot be overlooked, In fact, lower Court ought to have marked document itself as document is admissible which is clubbed with OS without confining to consideration of relevancy in docket order shall not, in above circumstances, operate as bar to allow marking of document –Held, Permission to get document marked cannot refused, impugned order is set aside and agreement of sale, would be marked subject to proof and relevancy by considering objections, if any, that may taken by Counsel for respondents, However, draft sale deed, being inadmissible document, cannot marked – Petition is allowed. (Para 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
Petition filed OS which is suit for specific performance, as already observed, docket order is not reasoned order, which does not even reflect objections raised by other side, OS filed for recovery of possession and OS is filed for specific performance, in which unregistered agreement of sale becomes relevant and admissible. Though suits are clubbed; aspect of relevancy cannot be overlooked, In fact, lower Court ought to have marked document itself as document is admissible which is clubbed with OS without confining to consideration of relevancy in docket order shall not, in above circumstances, operate as bar to allow marking of document.
Findings of the court:
Permission to get document marked cannot refused, impugned order is set aside and agreement of sale, would be marked subject to proof and relevancy by considering objections, if any, that may taken by Counsel for respondents, However, draft sale deed, being inadmissible document, cannot marked.
Result: Petition is allowed
ORDER :
T. RAJANI, J.
1. This revision is preferred against the order, dated 4.1.2018, passed in IA No. 758 of 2017 in OS No. 34 of 2011, by virtue of which the Court dismissed the petition, which was filed under Section 49 of the Registration Act read with 151 CPC seeking to admit the draft sale deed, dated 9.9.2009, and the agreement of sale, dated 20.8.2009, in evidence as per the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act.
2. Heard the Counsel for the petitioner as well as the Counsel for the respondents.
3. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the Court considered that earlier there was a docket order passed by the Court in OS No. 8 of 2010, which was clubbed with OS No. 34 of 2011 refusing to mark the same document. Against the said docket order, the petitioner therein preferred revision and the High Court confirmed the order. A perusal of the docket order shows that no reasons were absolutely mentioned.
4. Be that as it may, the Counsel now submits that the document at present is sought to be marked in OS No. 34 of 2011 and not in OS No. 8 of 2011 in which refusal to admit the document was recorded. He also draws the attention of this Court to proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, wherein an unregistered document effecting immovable property and required by this Act or the Transfer of Property Act, to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter-II of the Specific Relief Act or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument.
5. The earlier petition was filed in OS No. 8 of 2010, while this petition is filed in OS No. 34 of 2011, which is a suit for specific performance. As already observed, the docket order in OS No. 8 of 2010 is not a reasoned order, which does not even reflect the objections raised by other side. However, OS No. 8 of 2010 is filed for recovery of possession and OS No. 34 of 2011 is filed for specific performance, in which the unregistered agreement of sale becomes relevant and admissible. Though the suits are clubbed; the aspect of relevancy cannot be overlooked. In fact, the lower Court ought to have marked the document in OS No. 8 of 2010 itself as the document is admissible in OS No. 34 of 2011, which is clubbed with OS No. 8 of 2010 without confining to the consideration of relevancy in OS No. 8 of 2010. The docket order in OS No. 8 of 2010 shall not, in the above circumstances, operate as a bar to allow marking of the document in OS No. 34 of 2011.
6. Hence, in view of the above discussion and going by the purport of the above provision, the permission to get the document marked cannot be refused. The impugned order is set aside and the agreement of sale, dated 20.8.2009, would be marked subject to proof and relevancy by considering the objections, if any, that may be taken by the Counsel for the respondents. However, the draft sale deed, dated 9.9.2009, being an inadmissible document, cannot be marked.
7. With the above observations, the civil revision petition is partly allowed.
8. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
