Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(AP) 15741
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
B. S. Bhanu Mathi, J
M/S.ROWFIN REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
M/S.SUVARNA BHOOMI MARKETING AND SERVICE (INDIA) PVT LTD – Respondent
CRP 2463/2022
Sri. Sricharan Telaprolu, Sri. P Rajesh Babu
An unregistered agreement of sale can be admissible in evidence if it does not constitute an enforceable sale agreement, particularly when possession is granted as a licensee.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Revision petition against order rejecting objection to marking unregistered agreement of sale in evidence - The plaintiff sought recovery of Rs.1,71,73,333/- from the defendant based on an agreement of sale dated 08.08.2012, which was claimed to be unregistered and insufficiently stamped. (Paras 1-3)
(B) Admissibility of Documents - The court held that the agreement of sale, while titled as such, did not constitute an enforceable sale agreement due to its nature as a license agreement, thus not requiring registration or stamp duty. (Paras 7-10)
(C) Breach of Contract - The plaintiff alleged breach of the agreement by the defendant, who independently marketed and sold plots without fulfilling obligations under the agreement. (Paras 3-4)
(D) Legal Principles - The court emphasized that possession under the agreement was as a licensee, not as a vendee, affecting the enforceability of the agreement. (Paras 10) (E)
Findings of Court:
The objection to mark the document was dismissed as the agreement did not require registration or stamp duty. (Paras 10-11) (F)
Issues: The main issues included the nature of the agreement and the admissibility of the document in evidence. (Paras 6-8) (G)
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the agreement did not constitute a sale agreement requiring registration, thus the objection to its admissibility was unfounded. (Paras 10) (H)
Result: The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
ORDER:
This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order, dated 01.11.2022, rejecting the objection raised by the revision petitioner/defendant for marking the agreement of sale, dated 08.08.2012, in evidence on behalf of the plaintiff on the ground that it is unregistered and insufficiently stamped.
2. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,71,73,333/- from the defendant with subsequent interest @ 24% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- and suit costs.
3. The case of the plaintiff is briefly as follows:
The defendant entered into an agreement of sale on 12.12.2011, with the owners of the land by names, V.Seetarama Raju and Potluri Vijaya Kumar in respect of Ac.112.58 cents in Sy.Nos.797/2, 798/2 and 405 of Kamavarapukota village and Mandal, West Godavari District, and is in possession of the said property by virtue of the said agreement of sale. On 08.08.2012, the defendant and the plaintiff entered into an agreement of sale agreeing that the suit schedule property is in possession and enjoyment of the defendant in its own right as a licensee of the original owners. The defendant agreed to provide that the agricultural land is converted into non-agricultural land and the said land should be developed in the laid out plots for residential purpose and the said lay out has been tentatively approved vide Lr. R.O.C.No.4209/2012/R, dated 11.06.2012, issued by the Director, Town and Country Planning, Hyderabad. It is agreed by the defendant that the plaintiff shall promote selling of plots in the layout DTLP No.50/2012/R of DTCP, Hyderabad in the site admeasuring approximately 3,20,000 square yards out of Ac.112.58 cents. As per the agreement, the plaintiff has to sell 675 plots out of total plots of 736 in the lay out, at the rate of Rs.2,400/- per square yard within the fixed period of six months from the date of agreement and in any case, if the cost of the plot is increased during the period of six months, the defendant is entitled to receive 66.66% on the cost of the plot and the plaintiff is entitled to receive the remaining balance. In consideration of the agreement of sale, dated 08.08.2012, the plaintiff paid the defendant an amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/-under various cheques drawn on the Axis Bank, Rajahmundry. The defendant passed payment vouchers, dated 09.08.2012. Hence, the agreement of sale was signed by both the plaintiff and the defendant on 11.08.2012. The defendant promised that it would furnish all the material papers regarding conversion of the agricultural land into non-agricultural land, layout residential plots plan and final approved plan from the DTCP of Hyderabad, and also that the land would be developed as plots consisting roads, parks, drainage facility, overhead tank and electricity supply to enable the defendant to sell the plots to the public. For that purpose, the plaintiff set up an office at Eluru, immediately and from 12.08.2012, the marketing development activities commenced. The plaintiff nearly spent Rs.2,00,00,000/-. But the defendant did not furnish the documents required. As the defendant did not develop the land as agreed in the sale agreement for the purpose of selling the plots and did not furnish the documents required, the efforts of the plaintiff were in vain and the public did not come forward to purchase the plots. Meanwhile, contrary to the reciprocal promises under the agreement of sale, the defendant started marketing and selling the plots independently without information to the plaintiff. The plaintiff came to know about the same and questioned the defendant for which there has been no response from the defendant.
4. The plaintiff got issued a legal notice on 25.04.2013 to the defendant for breach of terms of the agreement and demanded refund of advance amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- and also to pay Rs.2,00,00,000/- towards expenses incurred. The defen
