IMPORTANT POINT
Unregistered agreements executed for property description do not create additional rights and do not require registration under the Registration Act.

ORDER :

R. Raghunandan Rao, J.

1. The 1st respondent herein filed O.S. No. 310 of 2008 before the Court of Learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle for declaration of his right and title over the suit schedule property which consisted of two parts, delineated as "ABHFG" and "HFEC" to the plaint sketch, and for a consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants, including the petitioner herein, from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the property by the first respondent.

2. The 1st respondent is said to have based his case on the ground that the 1st respondent had purchased these properties from the defendants in the suit which includes the petitioner herein. It is the case of the 1st respondent that he had purchased one property under a registered deed of sale dated 23.06.2001 and a second property under a registered deed of sale dated 18.08.2004. The 1st respondent also claimed that for the purpose of better description of the property, an agreement was executed by the petitioner herein in favour of the 1st respondent on 23.06.2001 in relation to the property sold under the registered deed of sale dated 23.06 2001. Similarly, an agreement was also said to have been executed on 18.08.2004 in relation to the registered deed of sale dated 18.08.2004. It may also be mentioned that these two agreements are unregistered and are nominally stamped.

3. The petitioner herein denied execution of these two unregistered nominally stamped agreements and objected to the marking of these two documents, in the course of trial, when the first respondent sought to mark these two documents as Exhibits A2 and A4. The Trial Judge had overruled the objections raised by the petitioner and permitted the said documents to be marked.

4. Aggrieved by the said rejection of objections filed by him, the petitioner has moved this Court by way of the present Civil Revision Petition.

5. Sri N. Pramod, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that both Exhibits A2 and A4 are instruments which have the effect of creating rights over the immovable property and as such require registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act and would also attract the stamp duty payable on a conveyance.

6. Sri S.S. Bhatt, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent would contend that the documents in question are not conveyances and are only agreements which have been executed for the purposes of better description of the property which has already been conveyed to the 1st respondent. He would submit that the actual transfer of the land was done under the registered deeds of sale and the subsequent agreements were only for the purpose of better description of the property and there has been no additional right or title created in favour of the 1st respondent by virtue of the execution of the said agreements which have now been marked as Exhibits A2 to and A4. He would also contend that these are documents which are only being used for collateral purpose of demonstrating the dimensions of the property which have been purchased by the 1st respondent and as such Section 17 of the Registration Act, even if the documents are to be considered as conveyances, would not be applicable. He relies upon the Judgments of M/s. Paul Rubber Industries Private Limited vs. Amit Chand Mitra & anr., 2023 AIR (SC) 4658 and J. Thirukumaran vs. District collector, Kancheepuram District LAWS (MAD)-2011-6-160 of a learned Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras.

7. Sri N. Promod, learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar Roy vs. Bhowra Kankanee Collieries Ltd., and Ors., 1970 INSC 251 : (1970) 3 SCC 565 (para-3) would contend that any rectification of a registered document can be done only by way of a separate registered document. The observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard are as follows:

3. Mr B. Sen for the appellant sought to raise the question about the admiss