ORDER :

1. This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by the plaintiff is directed against the orders, dated 31.12.2019, passed in OS.No.192 of 2015 on the file of the Court of V Additional District Judge, Vijayawada.

2. Heard Sri Yellabandi Ramatirtha, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/plaintiff. Notice sent to the respondents to the same address as given before the trial Court returned un-served.

3. The facts, in brief, are that the 1st defendant entered into an agreement of sale, dated 02.07.2013, in favour of the 2nd defendant for a total consideration of Rs.15,00,000/-. In pursuance of the said agreement, the 2nd defendant paid Rs.7,50,000/- towards part of consideration. However, the 1st defendant failed to comply his part of contractual obligation as per the sale agreement. Hence, the 2nd defendant filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement, dated 02.07.2013, in O.S.No.82 of 2014 on the file of XIII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, against the 1st defendant and the same is pending. When the said agreement of sale, dated 02.07.2013, is sought to be marked in the present suit, O.S.No.192 of 2015, the plaintiff raised an objection on the ground that it is inadmissible in evidence for want of sufficient stamp duty and registration.

(b) The 2nd defendant filed counter stating that he intend to produce the said document to put forth his defence and that under the sale agreement, dated 02.07.2013, he is not claiming any rights in the suit and filing of the said document is intended only to establish that there is an agreement between himself and the 1st defendant and therefore, it does not require registration and stamp duty.

4. The trial Court, by the order impugned in this revision, overruled the objection of the plaintiff and permitted the 2nd defendant to mark the document, dated 02.07.2013.

5. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff filed this revision contending that the agreement of sale, dated 02.07.2013, relied on by the 2nd defendant is a compulsorily registerable document in view of Section 17(1)(g) of the Registration Act, as the 2nd defendant failed to show the purpose for which the document is sought to be marked. The trial Court failed to consider the A.P Amendment Act IV of 1999, i.e., Section 17(1)(g) which does not make any distinction between possessory or non possessory agreements and making all agreements of sale compulsorily registerable with effect from 01.04.1999. The reasons assigned by the trial Court are unsustainable. The order impugned is liable to be set aside.

6. The main contention of the revision petitioner is that an unregistered agreement of sale can be used as evidence even for the main purpose only in a suit for specific performance, whereas the 2nd defendant wants to file an unregistered agreement of sale as evidence on his behalf to establish his defence based on the agreement of sale and thereby, it is the main purpose for which he wants to file the same in evidence, and therefore, the trial Court committed error in receiving it as evidence for collateral purpose which is permitted under Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908.

7. There is no dispute as to the fact that the unregistered agreement of sale which is sought to be filed by the 2nd defendant requires registration as per Section 17(1)(g) of the Registration Act. Section 49 of the Registration Act deals with the effect of a document which is not registered, though it requires registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act or under any provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and it prohibits its receipt in evidence while providing exceptions.

8. For better appreciation, Section 49 of the Registration Act is excerpted hereunder:

“49. Effect of non-registration of documents required to be registered – No document required by Section 17 or by any provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to be registered shall:

(a) Effect any immovable property c