R RAMAKRISHNAMA NAIDU Vs. R HARI PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises for consideration in this Civil Revision petition is whether the document in question is liable to be registered under section 17 (1) (b) of the Indian Registration Act. 1908. The unid- isputed facts which give rise to this question are as follows:- The petitioner herein filed 0 S. No. 195 of 1967 for specific performance of an agreement of sale executed by the adoptive father of the respondent. That was decreed and it became final inasmuch as the further appeal and the Second Appeal also were dismissed. Thereafter E P No. 18 of 1977 was filed by the decree holder for execution of the decree. It may be mentioned here that the adoptive father of the respondent also died and the respondent was impleaded as a party in the execution proceedings. During the execution proceedings the respondent filed a receipt said to have been executed by the petitioner herein giving up his right to get the document executed under the decree in lieu of receiving a sum of Rs. 1, 000/-. The office took objection that the document in question is a release deed and therefore it has to be subjected to the duty under the Andhra Pradesh Stamp Act. The executing Court sustained the objection. As against that C R P No. 4324 of 1979 was filed and Narasinga Rao, J. held that the document amounts to a release deed and therefore it has to be stamped. The document in question was accordingly stamped. Thereafter the respondent herein filed E A No. 21 of 1978 under Order 21 Rule 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure to record full satisfaction on the basis of the said document viz. the release deed which was duly stamped thereafter. He also examined P.W.1 and when the document was sought to be proved through him the petitioner-decree holder took an objection that it is inadmissible inasmuch as the document is compulsorily registerable under section 17(1)(b) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908. The learned District Munsiff over ruled the objection by his order dated 6-5-1980, It is this order that is challenged in this Civil Revision Petition.

(2.) Sri E. Manohar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under this document the party is purported to give up his right to get the document executed as per the decree in specific performance suit and consequently the right to get the decree executed gets extinguished and, therefore, the provisions of Section 17 (1) (b) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 are attracted. Before I proceed to consider this submission it Is necessary to refer to the contents of this document. The document is In Telugu and the translation of the same reads thus: Receipt dt. 20-2-1978 executed by Ramakrishnama Naidu in favour of Hari Prasad. I have filed a suit in Puttur District Munsif Court O.S No,195 of 1967 against you and obtained a decree and filed E.P No. 18 of 1977 in District Munsif Court, Satyavedu. At the instance of our well wishers the matter was compromised and I have taken from you Rs. 1000/-. I have under this document relinquished my right to obtain sale deed from you in pursuance of the said decree. You can enjoy the land without any obstruction. I will get the said decree rescinded. If I do not do so you may file this document in the Court and get the decree rescinded. I will take return of the money deposited in the Putlur District Munsif Court to the credit of this suit".

(3.) It can therefore be seen that under this document the petitioner is purported to have given up his right to get the sale deed executed in pursuance of the decree in lieu of having received Rs, 1,000/- from the respondent.