SURISETTY REVATHI Vs. TALADI YALAMANDA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 1st respondent filed O.S.No.172 of 2007 in the Court of IX Additional District Judge (FTC), Visakhapatnam, against the petitioner (1st defendant) and respondents 2 and 3, for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 16.11.2005. The plea of the petitioner in her written statement was that though the agreement was entered into, it was cancelled at a later point of time. The trial of the suit commenced. The agreement of sale was taken on record. However, when the deed of cancellation is sought to be filed, an objection was raised by the 1st respondent, as to its admissibility. The ground pleaded was that the agreement of sale was a registered one and unless the deed of cancellation is also registered, it cannot be received in evidence. Through its order, dated 01.11.2012, the trial Court sustained the objection and refused to receive the document. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the same.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that, even if the document is not admissible in evidence, the trial Court ought to have taken it on record for collateral purposes. There is some strength in this contention. Proviso to Section 49 of the Act itself creates such a facility. If a document, which is required to be registered, is not registered, it can be looked into for collateral purposes. It is a matter of common knowledge that a collateral purpose is the one which is other than the one which the document purports to bring about. Viewed in this angle, though deed of cancellation cannot be taken into account, for considering the plea of cancellation of the agreement, it can be relied upon by the petitioner in respect of any other plea, such as payment of the amount.