ORDER :

Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda, J.

The present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner herein/plaintiff challenging the docket order dated 10.02.2026 made in O.S.No.26 of 2023 on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Darsi, Prakasam District

2. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and respondent herein is defendant in the suit. For the sake of discussion the parties hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed in the suit.

Brief facts of the case

3. The plaintiff / petitioner herein filed suit O.S.No.26 of 2023 for specific performance of the possessory Agreement of Sale dated 14.11.2019. The plaint schedule properties are absolute properties of the defendant/respondent and she got acquired the same under the registered settlement deed vide document No.596/2018 from her husband Botla Koteswara Rao, who in turn acquired the same under registered sale deeds from Yalamanda Reddy and Telukutla Subbulu bearing document Nos.3297/2015 and 1157/2013 respectively. After such acquisition she was in possession and enjoyment of the same with absolute rights.

4. While so, the defendant / respondent herein offered to sell her plaint schedule properties and plaintiff/petitioner herein agreed to purchase the same for the valid sale consideration and paid a contract amount of Rs.25 lakhs on 14.11.2019. After receipt of the same the defendant / respondent herein executed an agreement of sale-cum-possession in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner and also delivered the possession of the plaint schedule properties. Since then the plaintiff/petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties with absolute rights.

5. It is further stated that the defendant/respondent also delivered the original link documents along with revenue records including pattadar pass books to the plaintiff/petitioner. Then the plaintiff/petitioner issued legal notice dated 08.09.2023 and expressed readiness and willing to perform his part of contract but the defendant / respondent did not perform on her part of contract. Hence the plaintiff/petitioner filed suit for specific performance of Agreement of Sale-cum-possession and for permanent injunction. It is further stated that the defendant/respondent with the help of her husband entered into plaint schedule property and dispossessed the plaintiff/petitioner herein from the plaint schedule property and accordingly the plaintiff also lodged a complaint before the police by registering FIR. Due to change of possession of the property the plaint was amended on 12.12.2024 and also sought relief for delivery of possession.

6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner submits that the Court below erroneously rejected the claim of the plaintiff/petitioner to mark the unregistered possessory agreement of sale dated 14.11.2019 as exhibit on his behalf. He further contends that as per the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 it is clearly and categorically expressed that when a suit is filed for specific performance of an unregistered agreement of sale or unregistered sale deed or an agreement of sale of tendered as proof of an agreement of sale can be received in evidence by making endorsement that it is received only for oral evidence of agreement of sale and ought to have marked the same to proceed with the suit. But contrary to the proviso the Court below rejected the claim of the plaintiff/petitioner to mark the unregistered agreement of sale as exhibit on the ground that the subject agreement of sale recites that it is an agreement of sale-cum- possession of the schedule property. As such, without paying required stamp duty and penalty the same cannot be marked as exhibit is an erroneous finding and contrary to the contention of the defendant/respondent in her written statement.

7. The further claim of the plaintiff/petitioner is that even though the plaintiff/petitioner pleaded that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the property pursuant to the unregistered agr