Point of Law : As the suit is for declaration of title based on these agreements of sale with possession, the main purpose is to establish title of ownership which is not even transferred under a document of agreement of sale. Even relief for recovery of possession or mandatory injunction is consequent to establishing title of ownership.

ORDER :

This revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is preferred against the order, dated 18.03.2019, passed in O.S.No.84 of 2014 on the file of the Court of VII Additional District Judge, Gudur, Nellore District, not allowing the documents at Sl.Nos.1 to 22 in the chief affidavit for making in evidence, as per the docket orders, dated 30.10.2018.

2. The revision petitioner is the 7th defendant in the suit. The respondents 1 and 2 are the plaintiffs. The respondents 3 to 13 are the other defendants who are shown as not necessary parties to this revision. The suit is filed for declaration of title, recovery of possession and mandatory injunction. When the 7th defendant filed affidavit as DW1 intending to file (24) documents mentioned in the affidavit, objection was taken by the plaintiff on 30.10.2018 on the ground of want of registration and insufficiency of stamp duty on the agreements of sale as it is recited ‘delivery of possession’ was effected under those documents. On 30.10.2018, the trial Court recorded the objection and adjourned the case to 05.11.2018, stating that it was of the view that it was proper to pass orders regarding admissibility of the documents while marking the documents and hence posted for appearance of DW1 on 05.11.2018. The docket order of the trial Court, dated 30.10.2018, reads as follows:

“When the counsel for defendants intend to mark the agreements of sale mentioned in the chief affidavit, the counsel for plaintiffs raised objection stating that the document was executed on insufficient stamped document and recitals of the documents goes to show that possession was delivered, as such the documents cannot be received in evidence. In support of his arguments he relied upon case in between Yerramreddy Chandra Reddy v. Thumma Kasapa Reddy and another reported in 2015(6) ALD.

On that the learned counsel for defendants argued that the agreements can be received in evidence for collateral purpose and the above citation is helpful to their case and the amendment to Section 17 of Registration Act was effected from 01.12.2012 and the documents relate to prior to 2012 as such they do not require registration. In support of his argument on that proposition he relied upon case in between K. Murugan v. B.Ramalingam in C.R.P.No.4576/2011.

Heard both the counsels. Perused the documents. The argument of the learned counsel for defendants that amendment to Sec.17 of Registration Act was effected from 01.12.2012 and the documents relates to prior to 2012 as such they do not require registration by relying upon the case in between K.Murugan v. B.Ramalingam in C.R.P.No.4576/2011 is not tenable as the said amendment referred in the citation is with regard to Tamilnadu Act 29 of 2012 which came into force w.e.f., 01.12.12. As such, the citation is not applicable to the present case. As seen from the record, there are number of agreements. Hence, this Court is of the view that it is proper to pass orders regarding admissibility of documents while marking the documents. Hence posted for appearance of DW1. Call on 05.11.2018.”

On 18.03.2019, the trial Court recorded as follows:

“DW1 was examined for further chief, exhibits B1 to B4 marked. Documents mentioned at serial numbers 1 to 22 in chief affidavit not marked as per docket orders dated 30.10.2018. Cross examination by counsel for plaintiff, deferred at request posted to 25-03-2019.”

3. Being aggrieved by the order of rejection to receive the documents in evidence, the present revision was filed stating that refusal to receive the documents mentioned at Sl. Nos. 1 to 20 in the affidavit is contrary to law and they can be marked for collateral purpose and that the trial Court erred in not taking into consideration the judgment relied on by the petitioner. It is further stated that these documents can be received in evidence for collateral purpose as they relate to the period prior to 2012 and they do not require registration.

4. Heard Sri C.Subodh,