IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2796 of 2019 DATE: 13.03.2026 Between Kummanaboina Nagaiah and 3 others …Petitioners AND Gottuparthi Upender Rao and another …Respondents

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the marked document Ex.A-1 agreement of sale dated 27.04.2017 in O.S.No.13 of2017 on 17.08.2019 by the learned Agent to Government/District Collector, Khammam, Khammam District.

2. Heard Sri Madiraju Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel representing Sri Kowturu Pawan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri N.V. Anantha Krishna, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the entire material on record.

3. Learned counsel of the petitioner contended that the present revision petition is filed for marking of a document as an exhibit, even though the same is unregistered and insufficiently stamped. The reasons recorded by the Agent to Government for admitting the document dated 27.04.2017 as Ex.A-1 is not sustainable in law, and the said document is not admissible in evidence.

4. The document, marked as Ex.A-1, was admitted ignoring the objections raised by the respondents, who are the defendants in the suit, regarding its marking. The said document is described as an agreement of sale. However, its recitals clearly reveal that the nature of the document is that of a sale deed. Therefore, the respondents contended that such a document, being unregistered and insufficiently stamped, cannot be received in evidence.

5. During the course of marking of documents before the Agency Court, the counsel for the defendants raised a specific objection to the marking of the agreement of sale dated 27.04.2017, which is said to have been executed by plaintiff No.1 in favour of plaintiff No.2 in respect of the suit schedule property. The objection was raised on the ground that the document is not a registered one and that it is sought to be marked merely as an agreement of sale, though its contents and recitals disclose that it is a sale deed.

6. The Agency Court, after hearing the objection raised by the counsel for the defendant, overruled the objection and held that due to the general practice in Agency area before going for registration, the executor will go for agreement of sale and they will get the approval of POITDA and they will registered their document as per Indian Registration Act.

7. Setting aside the objection raised, Ex.A-1 was marked and on perusal of Ex.A-1, which is written in the Telugu language, reveals that the land in Sy.No.792/AA was said to have been sold for a consideration of Rs.5,00,000/-, and it is further recited that the entire sale consideration had been paid and possession of the property was delivered to the purchaser.

8. The recitals in the document clearly indicate that the transaction was completed, inasmuch as the consideration was fully paid and possession was delivered. These aspects demonstrate that the so called Agreement of Sale is, in substance and for all practical purposes, in the nature of a sale deed. However, the said document was engrossed only on Rs.100/- non-judicial stamp paper.

9. In view of the specific recitals indicating payment of the entire sale consideration and delivery of possession, the true nature of the document amounts to a sale deed, attracting the provisions of Section 33 of the Stamp Act, 1899, which is extracted hereunder:

“Every person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, and every person in charge of a public office, except an officer of police, before whom any instrument, chargeable, in his opinion, with duty, is produced or comes in the performance of his functions, shall, if it appears to him that such instrument is not duly stamped, impound the same”

And also the Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, which is extracted below:

“Section 17 of The Registration Act, 190