IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K. Sreenivasa Reddy, J.
Polaka Venkata Rami Reddy - Appellant
Versus
Polaka Chinnamma - Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No.1728 of 2022
Decided On : 05-01-2024
Exchange Deed - Registration Act - Section 17, Section 45, Section 49 - The court discussed the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, particularly Section 17, Section 45, and Section 49, and their interpretation in allowing the marking of an unregistered Exchange Deed as evidence of a collateral transaction of delivery of possession of properties exchanged.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a suit seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction. During the trial, the petitioner sought to mark an unregistered Exchange Deed as evidence of possession, but the trial Judge rejected the request.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the unregistered Exchange Deed could be marked as evidence of a collateral transaction of delivery of possession of the properties exchanged, as the parties had already exchanged their properties and possession had been handed over.
Issues: The main issue was the admissibility of the unregistered Exchange Deed as evidence of a collateral transaction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of the Registration Act, particularly Section 17, Section 45, and Section 49, along with relevant case law, to allow the marking of the unregistered Exchange Deed as evidence of the collateral transaction of delivery of possession.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was allowed, setting aside the trial court's order, and the unregistered Exchange Deed was directed to be marked as Exhibit for the purpose of proving the collateral transaction of delivery of possession.
ORDER
1. The Civil Revision Petition has been filed aggrieved by the Docket Order dated 14.07.2022 passed in O.S.No.56 of 2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kandukur.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner/plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit O.S.No.56 of 2009 against the respondents/ defendants seeking the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of suit A schedule property. The respondents/defendants filed their written statement. Trial began in the said suit. At the time of examination of the plaintiff as P.W.1, Exchange Deed dated 28.01.1989 is sought to be marked as Ex.A1. Learned counsel for respondents/ defendants objected for the same on the ground that it is an unregistered Exchange Deed and cannot be marked to prove acquisition/transfer of rights. It is the contention of the petitioner/plaintiff that since he paid stamp duty and penalty on the said Exchange Deed, it can be marked to prove the collateral transaction of nature of possession. The trial Judge, vide the impugned Docket Order dated 14.07.2022, sustained the objection raised by the respondents/defendants and rejected request of petitioner/ plaintiff to mark the said Exchange Deed. Challenging the said order, the present revision came to be filed.
3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since stamp duty and penalty have been paid on the said document, to prove the collateral transaction of nature of possession of the petitioner/plaintiff over the schedule property, the Exchange Deed can be marked as contemplated under Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, but the Court below committed illegality in rejecting to mark the said document for the purpose of proving the collateral transaction also, and hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside and sought a direction to mark the Exchange Deed dated 28.01.1989 as an Exhibit.
The learned counsel relied on a decision in K.Ramamoorthi v. C.Surendranatha Reddy, 2012 (6) ALT 786 (S.B.) in support of his contention.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents 2 to 7 and 9 contended that the subject Exchange Deed dated 28.01.1989 is an unregistered document and hence, it cannot be used to establish acquisition/transfer of rights in immovable property. He further submits that since no possession was transferred under the subject Exchange Deed, though stamp duty and penalty have been paid on the said document, it cannot be marked even to prove the collateral transaction, as contemplated under Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, and considering these aspects, the trial Court right rejected the request to mark the said document and there are no grounds to interfere with the said order.
5. O.S. No.56 of 2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kandukur has been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff against the respondents/defendants for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of suit A schedule property. After filing written statement and settlement of issues, trial began in the said suit. At the time of examination of the plaintiff as P.W.1, when Exchange Deed dated 28.01.1989 was sought to be marked as Ex.A1, on the objection of counsel for respondents/defendants, the trial Judge rejected the request of petitioner/plaintiff to mark the said document as Ex.A1, by the impugned Docket Order. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed.
6. Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 specifies the documents whose registration is compulsory. Under Section 17 (1) (b), other non-testamentary instruments which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property, are included. The subject exchange deed, which conveys right and title in the immovable property, falls in this category of instruments.
Under Section 45 of the Registratio
The main legal point established is that an unregistered document, such as an Exchange Deed, can be admitted as evidence of a collateral transaction, particularly the delivery of possession, under th....
Unregistered documents cannot be used as evidence for transactions affecting immovable property unless for collateral purposes, as per the Registration Act.
An unregistered sale deed cannot be admitted as evidence for ownership in a declaration suit, violating statutory provisions of the Registration Act and Transfer of Property Act.
The admissibility of unregistered documents for collateral purposes and the process of impoundment and penalty for inadequate stamping were central to the judgment.
Unregistered documents are inadmissible as evidence unless related to a specified collateral transaction not requiring registration.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.