Unregistered agreements may be admissible in specific performance suits, and the absence of possession transfer does not bar such documentation under the Registration Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present revision petition is filed aggrieved by order dated 17.08.2017 in OS No.21 of 2014, on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Tanuku, West Godavari District.

2. The respondent/plaintiff filed suit in OS No.21/2014, for specific performance based on agreement sale dated 30.11.2007, directing the 1st defendant to execute sale deed over the suit schedule property or in the alternative refund an amount of Rs.10,00,000/-, which was given as hand loan to the mother of the 1st defendant which was adjusted towards the part sale consideration and for damages. The petitioners filed a written statement in the said suit and when the matter is posted for trial, the respondent/plaintiffs sought to mark agreement of sale dated 30.11.2007, the petitioners/defendants raised an objection stating that the said document cannot be marked for want of stamp duty and registration.

3. After hearing the parties, the Trial Court by order dated 17.08.2017, over-ruled the objection raised by the petitioners by according permission to mark the document in evidence. Questioning the said order, the present revision petition is filed.

4. Heard Counsel for the petitioners and Counsel for the respondent.

5. Perused the material available on record.

6. It is the case of the petitioners that the document i.e., the agreement of sale dated 30.11.2007, is inadmissible in evidence for want of stamp duty, penalty and registration. It is the further case of the petitioners that the disputed document is not a mere agreement of sale but on a perusal of the recitals therein show that there are several other aspects involved inasmuch as the plaintiff as vendee under the said document did not pay any amount as advance. It is further contended by the Counsel for the petitioners that the plaintiff contributed certain amount while constructing the building in dispute on behalf of late Smt. Sathyavati, who was none other than the mother of the 1st defendant. When the said amount was demanded to repay, she expressed her inability to pay the said amount, thereby the respondent/plaintiff was permitted to receive rents towards the amount payable by her.

7. It is further case of the petitioners that to discharge the amount due to the plaintiff, the said Smt. Satyavathi wanted to sell the suit schedule property and agreed to adjust the amount due towards part sale consideration as advance. It is further contended that the acknowledgement of obligation under the above document comes within the definition of bond as defined under Section 2(10) of Indian STAMP ACT and the same is required to be stamped sufficiently as per the said Act. It is also the contention of the petitioners that an interest is created in the immovable property in favour of the plaintiff to collect rents therefore unless the stamp duty is paid and the document is registered, the same is not admissible in evidence.

8. Per contra, the Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff contended that on perusal of the recitals in the agreement of sale, it is clear that the document by itself does not create any right over the immovable property and possession of the suit schedule property remains with the petitioners/defendants. It is further contended that, it is categorically stated in the document that the possession will be delivered to the respondent/plaintiff at the time of registration. As such, the Counsel for the respondent contends that since it is only the agreement of sale without delivery of possession, the disputed document can be marked in evidence.

9. For proper appreciation of the case on hand Section 17 of the REGISTRATION ACT , 1908, reads as foll