The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the nature of the document, the requirement for registration and stamp duty, and the duty of the Court to ensure compliance with legal provisions.

ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the docket orders dated 28.12.2022 passed in I.A.No.621 of 2022 in O.S.No.124 of 2022 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuram.

2. The petitioner is the defendant and the respondents are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.124 of 2022 filed for permanent injunction.

3. The respondents filed I.A.No.621 of 2022 under Order-39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for grant of ad interim injunction pending disposal of the injunction suit filed by them. In the said application, when the respondents sought to mark the lease/rent agreement dated 10.07.2019, the petitioner objected the same on the ground that since the said document purports lease of the property for a period of 10 years, the same cannot be marked as an exhibit, being unregistered and insufficiently stamped. Consequently, the trial Court, upon hearing both the parties and upon considering the decisions relied on by them in support of their respective contentions, overruled the objection raised by the petitioner holding that the document sought to be marked is only an executory agreement but not a lease or agreement for lease and thus the same is admissible in evidence and the same can be marked.

4. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed this Civil Revision Petition invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

5. Heard Sri Virupaksha Dattathreya Gouda, learned counsel, for Sri Vivekananda Virupaksha, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Medapati Santosh Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents.

6. Sri Virupaksha Dattathreya Gouda, learned cousnel, in elaboration would submit that the subject document since stipulates all the terms and conditions a valid lease deed ought to contain, such as-tenure of lease and its extension after completion of the initial tenure of lease of 10 years, quantum of rent and its periodical enhancement and all the other rights and liabilities of the parties thereto, thus the said document is a Lease Deed. Even if the said document is treated as an agreement to lease, it comes within the sweep of ‘lease’ as per section 2(7) of the Registration Act and thus the document requires registration and the same is to be sufficiently stamped as per Section 29(c) and Article 21 of the Schedule 1A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

The learned counsel would further submit that, nomenclature of the document is immaterial, but its terms and conditions would determine the nature and character of the document and the Court must gather the intention of the parties from embodiment of the document. The subject document clearly spells out the intention of the parties thereto is to treat the document as a lease deed but not as a proposed agreement to lease. However, the lower court swayed away by the nomenclature of the document and also upon misconception of the facts of the case as well as the pronouncements relied on by the respective parties committed a grave error in coming to the fallible conclusion that the subject document is only an executory agreement but not lease/agreement to lease and thus admissible in evidence. The learned counsel would further submit that, the Court below has shirked away the duty cast upon it to ensure collection of deficit stamp duty as envisaged in section 33 of the Stamp Act. The order impugned is unsustainable, irrational, suffers from patent irregularity and perverse. Hence, sought interference of this Court and prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition.

7. Per contra, Sri Medapati Santosh Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents, would submit that, the duties of the first part to fourth part (lessors) to the subject document clarifies that they are not even owners of the building property and that construction of the tenanted building was not completed in all aspects as on the date of the execution of the document. This, coupled with the nomenclature of the document, speaks volumes of the intention of the p