ORDER:

Defendant in the suit filed the above revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against order, dated 11.10.2022 passed in I.A.No.1710 of 2019 in O.S.No.304 of 2017 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, West Godavari District.

2. Plaintiff filed O.S.No.304 of 2017 for recovery of amount basing on receipt, dated 12.09.2015.

3. Defendant is contesting the suit by filing written statement.

4. Pending the suit, defendant filed I.A.No.1710 of 2019 under Order XVIII Rule 4 and Section 151 of CPC to decide admissibility of document, dated 12.09.2015.

5. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was contended inter alia that plaintiff filed suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.10,70,250/-; that as per averments in the plaint, defendant leased out Ac.10-00 of vacant land to the plaintiff for a period of five years on an annual lease amount of Rs.1,50,000/-; that on 01.10.2014, defendant received Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintiff and executed agreement of lease in favour of the plaintiff; that on 12.09.2015, at the request of defendant, plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- to the defendant towards lease amount for five years and the defendant issued receipt, dated 12.09.2015; that in fact defendant neither leased out the property nor received any amount from the plaintiff either on 01.10.2014 or on 12.09.2015 and he did not execute alleged lease agreement or lease receipt on the respective dates; that the document, dated 12.09.2015 is not receipt and a perusal of the recital would indicate that it is agreement of lease and it is compulsory registerable document; that receipt, dated 12.09.2015 was marked as Ex.A1 without deciding its admissibility and hence, the application.

6. Respondent/plaintiff filed counter and opposed the application.

7. The trial Court by order, dated 11.10.2022 dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed.

8. Heard both sides.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that Ex.A1 is not receipt and a perusal of nomenclature of Ex.A1 indicates that it is lease deed. Hence, it cannot be admitted in evidence without registration.

10. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, supported the order of the trial Court.

11. The point to be considered is whether Ex.A1, dated

12.09.2015 is lease deed or receipt?

12. Ex.A1, dated 12.09.2015 was described as Receipt. However, nomenclature of document is not decisive. Contents of the document are to be considered. The contents of the document would disclose that defendant is the owner of the land and he leased out the land to the plaintiff and on 01.10.2014, defendant received an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- as advance amount. The contents further disclose that defendant executed lease deed (kavula patram) on the same day and handed over possession and that defendant, for his family necessities also received Rs.7,50,000/-, the remaining lease amount and acknowledged the same under this document.

13. Thus, a reading of the document would indicate that lease deed, dated 01.10.2014 was executed separately. This document discloses regarding receipt of amounts of Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.7,50,000/- on respective dates. The document was admitted as Ex.A1. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that a reading of contents of Ex.A1 shows that it is lease deed, but not receipt, cannot be accepted. In fact, the trial Court considered the document and concluded that it is only receipt, but not lease deed.

14. In the considered opinion of this Court, Ex.A1 is only a receipt, but not lease deed. This Court does not find any illegality in the order passed by the trial Court, warranting interference of this Court. Hence, the revision is liable to be set aside.

15. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs.

As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.

__________________________

SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J Date : 02.12.2022 ikn HON’