(1.) This civil revision petition arises out of order, dated 18.07.2011, in O.S.No.108 of 2008, on the file of the learned XI Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Kakinada.
(2.) Respondent Nos.1 to 13 filed the above-mentioned suit for declaration of title and for recovery of possession. The petitioners are defendant Nos.3 and 4 in the said suit. For convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.
(3.) One of the pleas raised by the plaintiffs is that their ancestor, Vanimisetti Chakrapani Rao, has purchased the suit property through unregistered sale deed, dated 30.06.1960, and that since then, he and thereafter, they were in uninterrupted possession of the same and thereby perfected their title through adverse possession. It is their further plea that defendant Nos.1 and 2 i.e., State of Andhra Pradesh and the Tahsildar, ought not to have granted assignment in favour of defendant Nos.3 and 4. During the course of evidence, the plaintiffs sought to introduce the unregistered sale deed, dated 30.06.1960, in evidence. This was opposed by defendant Nos.3 and 4 on the ground that the said document, which is in the nature of sale deed, is unregistered and hence, the same is not admissible in evidence. The lower Court rejected the said objection by holding that under proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short 'the Act'), even an unregistered document affecting the immovable property can be received for collateral purpose. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the present civil revision petition is filed by defendant Nos.3 and 4. At the hearing, Sri P.Govinda Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court K.B.Saha and Sons Private Limited v. Development Consultant Limited, 2008 8 SCC 564 , the judgment of this Court in Netrambaka Krishnaiah v. Nellore Audinarayana, 2006 1 ALT 76 , and also the judgment of the Bombay High Court in V.H.Deshpande v. R.D.Deshpande,1942 AIR(Bom) 268.