TIRUNAM GURAPPA Vs. NAIDU RAMANA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant is the petitioner in this revision. The revision is filed questioning the order of the Principal District Munsif, Srikalahasti, in O.S. No.406 of 1988, in and by the terms of which it was held that Ex.A-1, dated 2-10-1978, is only an agreement to sell and not a sale-deed. The relevant facts are as follows.

(2.) Respondent-plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 2-10-1978, which was marked as Ex.A-1. The defendant raised the objection that the document, Ex.A-1, is not an agreement of sale, but it is an out-right sale-deed in and by the terms of which the property was conveyed and that therefore the said document is inadmissible in evidence. The learned trial Judge held that the document is only an agreement of sale and not a sale-deed and therefore it is admissible in evidence. Questioning the said order this revision is filed by the defendant.

(3.) Sri P.S.Narayana, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner- defendant contended that a reading of the document makes it clear that it conveyed absolute rights in the property to the plaintiff and therefore it amounts to conveyance and the same, not being stamped or registered, is inadmissible in evidence.