Point of Law: Court has added one more principle, i.e., a document required to be registered, if unregistered, can be admitted in evidence as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance.

JUDGMENT :

Challenging the order dated 21.03.2022 in O.S. No.828 of 2012 passed by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge at Warangal, the petitioner herein has filed the present revision.

2. Perusal of the record would reveal that the petitioner herein had filed a suit vide O.S. No.828 of 2012 against the respondents herein for specific performance of contract. The said suit was founded on an unregistered document termed “House Sale Deed” dated 16.03.2011. Vide impugned order dated 21.03.2022, learned Judge has directed the petitioner herein - plaintiff to pay deficit stamp duty and penalty prevailing as on the date of execution of the said document as per Article - 47A (i) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short ‘Act, 1899) on the sale consideration of Rs.5,25,000/- before the Court or to take steps to send the document to the District Registrar, Stamps and Registration Department for collection of deficit stamp duty and penalty failing which the said document shall stand rejected.

3. Heard Mr. G.L. Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record.

4. Referring to the subject document, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that under the subject document, possession was not delivered and, therefore, there is no need of payment of stamp duty. It is agreement of sale, but not sale deed. Therefore, the Court below erred in directing the petitioner herein to pay the deficit stamp duty. He has also placed reliance on the decision in S. Kaladevi v. V.R. Somasundaram, AIR 2010 SC 1654.

5. As discussed above, the aforesaid suit was filed for specific performance of contract. It was founded on the above referred house sale deed which is unregistered. In the said document, there is a specific mention that the deceased respondent being the owner of the suit schedule property i.e., House No.11-7-131 including open space admeasuring 200 square yards sold to the petitioner herein for total sale consideration of Rs.5,25,000/-. He had received the said total sale consideration. From the said date, neither the deceased respondent, nor his heirs have any right over the said property.

Admittedly, there is no mention about the delivery of possession in the said document, but it is titled as a House Sale Deed. Total sale consideration was paid by the petitioner herein to the deceased respondent. He had received the entire sale consideration. Therefore, it cannot be treated as agreement of sale and in fact it is house sale deed. Thus, the petitioner herein has to necessarily pay deficit stamp duty in terms of the Act, 1899 more particularly, as per Article - 47A(i) of the Act, 1899 which deals with instruments of conveyance etc., undervalued, how to be, dealt with, failing which, it is inadmissible.

6. In S. Kaladevi, the Apex Court has relied upon its earlier judgment in K.B. Saha & Sons Private Limited v. Development Consultant Limited [(2008) 8 SCC 564]. In the said judgment, the Apex Court has culled out certain principles which are as under:

"1. A document required to be registered, if unregistered is not admissible into evidence under Section 49 of the Registration Act.

2. Such unregistered document can however be used as an evidence of collateral purpose as provided in the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act.

3. A collateral transaction must be independent of, or divisible from, the transaction to effect which the law required registration.

4. A collateral transaction must be a transaction not itself required to be effected by a registered document, that is, a transaction creating, etc. any right, title or interest in immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards.

5. If a document is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration, none of its terms can be admitted in evidence and that to use a document for the purpose of proving an important clause would not be using it as a collateral purpose."

7. Referring to the above principles, in S. Kaladevi, the Apex Court has added one