Unregistered sale deeds are inadmissible as evidence in property transactions requiring registration; compliance with registration is necessary for evidential validity.

ORDER :

TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO, J.

The sole respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.450 of 2017 on the file of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, filed for declaration of title and for consequential relief.

2. The petitioners herein, who are the defendants in the said suit, filed I.A.No.431 of 2022 under Order VIII Rule 1(3) instead of Order VIII R-1A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, on the ground that the 1^st petitioner herein-1^st defendant in the suit has purchased an extent of 350 square yards which includes plaint schedule property from the mother of 1^st plaintiff and other family members of plaintiff-respondent herein under the unregistered sale deed dated 18.08.2008 and the said document is essential to prove his case and also he could not file the said original unregistered sale deed before the Court along with written statement, as it was mixed with other documents and the said document was traced few days back and the said unregistered sale deed is an important document to prove his case.

3. Denying the contentions made in the affidavit filed in support of the application, the respondent herein-plaintiff filed counter asserting that the said document cannot be received in evidence even for collateral purpose also on the ground that it is an unregistered sale deed and it is compulsory registrable document and the said document is created by the defendants for the purpose of defending the suit and to grab the suit schedule property and, therefore, prayed not to allow I.A.No.431 of 2022 to receive document. Hence, prayed to dismiss the interlocutory application.

4. On analysing the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides and after considering the judgments cited both sides, the trial Court has dismissed the said interlocutory application on the ground that the petitioners herein-defendants have not assigned any valid and sufficient reasons for non-filing of said document along with written statement and the interlocutory application is filed with wrong provision and the unregistered sale deed dated 18.08.2008 is an incompleted document and also it cannot be received to tender evidence on behalf of the petitioners-defendants as it is required to fulfil the conditions deficit of stamp duty coupled with registration under Section 17 of the REGISTRATION ACT and the petitioners-defendants have an option and would be admissible as evidence in a suit for specific performance, but not for the suit for declaration and, accordingly, dismissed the I.A.No.431 of 2022 in O.S.No.450 of 2017, vide order dated 27.09.2024.

5. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the said order dated 27.09.2024 passed in I.A.NO.431 of 2022 on the ground that the Court below has committed a grave error in dismissing the application filed under Section 38(2) of the Indian STAMP ACT seeking a direction to send the unregistered sale deed for impounding to the District Registrar in the suit for levying stamp duty; the Court below committed error in dismissing the application for impounding the document without regard to the law laid down by the High Court in 2020(1) ALD 162; non- registration of document is not germane for deciding the issue involved in the present application; and the order of the trial Court is perverse, but also runs counter to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Hence, prayed to set aside the impugned order dated 27.09.2024 in I.A.No.431 of 2022 in O.S.No.450 of 2017.

6. Now the point that arises for consideration is, whether the impugned order dated 27.09.2024 in I.A.No.431 of 2022 in O.S.No.450 of 2017 on the file of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge at Vizianagaram, is liable