ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/defendant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the orders passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur, in O.S.No.215 of 2009, dated 15.10.2015 wherein Court below held that document dated 19.07.2009 though named as agreement of sale but it is a release deed admissible in evidence and the plaintiff shall take steps to get impound the same as per Registration Act and Stamp Act.

2. The respondent/plaintiff filed suit against the revision petitioner herein for specific performance of a contract in pursuance of document dated 19.07.2009 stating that himself and the revision petitioners have purchased plaint schedule house property under registered sale deed dated 19.10.1989 for valid consideration from rightful owners and ever since both have been enjoying property by running a kirana shop and thereafter revision petitioner herein agreed to sell his share of plaint schedule property and executed an agreement of sale dated 19.07.2009 in his favour and handed over the shop and delivered possession of plaint schedule property with a stipulation to receive sale consideration of Rs.4,00,000/- within three months and execute registered sale deed which he failed due to that he filed suit for specific performance. The respondent has claimed that ever since the revision petitioner executed document dated 19.07.2009, he has got exclusive possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property. The said suit is resisted by revision petitioner by filing written statement and during the trial, the respondent, who was examined as PW.1 intended to mark document dated 19.07.2009, which objected by revision petitioner and then Court below held that it is a release deed can be admitted in evidence after paying stamp duty by relying on ratio laid down by this Court in G. Dayanand Vs. District Registrar, Hyderabad and another, 2012 (5) ALT 603.

3. Aggrieved by the orders passed by Court below, the petitioner preferred present revision petition stating that trial Court admitted unregistered and unstamped agreement of sale deed dated 19.07.2009, which is hit by Section 17 of Registration Act, which cannot be received in evidence.

4. I have heard both sides.

5. Learned counsel Mr. M. Srikanth, for revision petitioner would submit that document dated 19.07.2009 is not a release deed, which is an agreement of sale evidencing delivery of possession, which cannot be received in evidence even as per Section 49 of Registration Act, which created right in immovable property. He prays to allow the revision petition.

6. Learned counsel Mr. V. Nitesh for the respondent would submit that parties are no other than full blood brothers and document dated 19.07.2009 is a release deed as one of the co-owners executed document in favour of another co-owner by agreeing to receive money towards ½ portion of value of the property. He would further submit that the present case is similar to the circumstances which this Court held in G. Dayanand case referred supra. He prays to dismiss the revision petition.

7. Now the issue that emerges for consideration of this Court is:-

“Whether the Order under challenge is sustainable and tenable and whether the same warrants any interference of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India?”

POINT:-

8. It is not in dispute that the respondent has filed suit against the revision petitioner for specific performance of a contract in pursuance of document dated 19.07.2009. The English translated copy of document is extracted hereunder:-

TRUE TRANSLATION

AGREEMENT OF SALE

“This deed of agreement is executed on this the 19th day of July, 2009 between (1) Kambam Narasimhulu Setty and (2) Kambam Jagadeesh Kumar Setty, both residents of Muddanur Village as follows:

The house bearing No.4/55A, which is in our joint possession, I sold the same to our for an amount of Rs.4,00,000/-(Rupees four lakhs only) and possession of the same has been delivered to you. On payment