Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SUREPALLI NANDA, J.
M.Panduranga Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Smt.N.Narsamma - Respondent
C.R.P.No.2124 OF 2023
Decided on : 29-11-2023
Agreement of Sale - Property Dispute - Indian Registration Act, 1908, Section 17 - The court discussed the admissibility of an unregistered Agreement of Sale dated 25.01.2000 in a property dispute. It referred to legal principles from various judgments including the proviso to Section 49 of the Act, emphasizing that the nature of the document should be determined by its recitals and not its nomenclature. The court held that the document, though styled as an agreement, was in fact a sale deed and thus compulsorily registrable under Section 17 of the Act. It concluded that the document could not be admitted into evidence for the purpose of the suit, as it affected the immovable property and was not admissible for collateral purpose.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for declaration of her title for the suit property, eviction of the defendant, and correction in the house tax Revision Register. The defendant claimed ownership based on an unregistered Agreement of Sale dated 25.01.2000.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the document, despite being styled as an agreement, was, in fact, a sale deed and thus compulsorily registrable under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908. It held that the document could not be admitted into evidence for the purpose of the suit, as it affected the immovable property and was not admissible for collateral purpose.
Issues: The main issue was the admissibility of the unregistered Agreement of Sale dated 25.01.2000 in the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on legal principles from various judgments, emphasizing that the nature of the document should be determined by its recitals and not its nomenclature. It highlighted the proviso to Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, and concluded that the document could not be admitted into evidence for the purpose of the suit.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed, and the court held that there was no illegality or impropriety in the order dated 26.06.2023 in O.S.No.53 of 2017 passed by the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Zaheerabad.
ORDER :
This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the propriety and legality of the docket order dated 26.06.2023 in O.S.No.53 of 2017 passed by the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Zaheerabad whereby and whereunder it was held by the trial Court that the unregistered Agreement of Sale dated 25.01.2000 is inadmissible in evidence and accordingly the objection raised by the plaintiff was sustained.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit before the trial Court.
3. The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant for declaration of her title for the suit property, for the eviction of the defendant and for a decree for correction in the house tax Revision Register of the Grampanchayat at Rajole for the year 1998-1999, by incorporating her name as owner of the suit property after deleting the name of the plaintiff in respect thereof.
4. As can be seen from the plaint, the case of the plaintiff in brief is that one Narayana Rao, was the owner and possessor of the house bearing No.3-106, admeasuring 507.65 sq. yards situated in Rajole Village. In the year 1987, the plaintiff purchased the western portion of the said house which includes constructed and open area admeasuring 226.65 sq. yards under registered sale deed bearing document No.1723 of 1987 dated 18.08.1987 from the said Narayana Rao for valid consideration and the vendor delivered possession of the properly to her as shown in the schedule to the plaint (suit property). The defendant is younger brother of the plaintiff. M.Vittal Reddy, the father of the plaintiff and the defendant jointly purchased the eastern portion of the above said house under registered sale deed bearing document No.1722 of 1987 dated 18.08.1987. About seven or eight years ago, the plaintiff at the request of the defendant permitted him to reside in the suit house in January 2017, she asked him to vacate the suit house but he refused and that is why plaintiff is constrained to file the suit. The defendant filed written statement denying the case of the plaintiff and took the plea that the plaintiff sold the suit house to him under simple sale deed dated 25.01.2000 for sale consideration of Rs.31,000/- and that with her consent he got mutated his name in revenue record and that ever since the date of purchase he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit house.
5. The impugned docket order shows that the defendant intended to mark the unregistered agreement of sale dated 25.01.2000 and the plaintiff objected to the marking of the document on the ground that the document is compulsorily registerable under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (for short the ‘Act’) and so it is inadmissible in evidence.
6. The trial Court upheld the objection of the plaintiff. Aggrieved thereby the defendant preferred the present Revision Petition.
7. Heard the arguments of both the learned counsel on record.
PERUSED THE RECORD.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:
8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner mainly contended that the document is an agreement of sale and that the document was impounded and stamp duty and penalty was paid and so it can be admitted into evidence, and in support of the said contention he relied upon the following Judgments.
(2) The Apex Court Judgment dated 12.04.2010 reported in 2010 SCC in “S.KALADEVI v. V.R.SOMASUNDARAM & OTHERS”, in Civil Appeal No.3192/2010 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.1451/2009).
(3) The order of this Court dated 25.04.2023 in “PATHI CHANDRASEKHAR v. SYED SALAR AND & 16 OTHERS”, in Civil Revision Petition No.24 of 2003.
9. The learned counsel for the respondent refuting the above contention submitted that the document is compulsorily registrable under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 and so it cannot be admitted into evidence in the suit
Unregistered agreements of sale are inadmissible in evidence for suits requiring registration under the Indian Registration Act, as their nature is determined by recitals, not nomenclature.
Unregistered documents cannot be used as evidence for transactions affecting immovable property unless for collateral purposes, as per the Registration Act.
An unregistered Sale deed may be admissible for collateral purposes if proper procedures, including stamp duty payment, are followed, according to Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act.
An unregistered sale deed cannot be admitted as evidence for ownership in a declaration suit, violating statutory provisions of the Registration Act and Transfer of Property Act.
A Sale Deed must be registered to be admissible in evidence, regardless of its historical context or the law in force at the time of execution.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
