KUKKU VENKATARATNAM Vs. K.SUJILABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed O.S.No.20 of 2003 in the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati, for the relief of specific performance of two agreements of sale, dated 29.07.1991 and 01.12.1992. During the trial of the suit, the petitioner sought to file the agreements referred to above. An objection was raised stating that the agreements are not properly stamped and not registered. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application to send the documents to the Collector under the Indian Stamp Act for collection of stamp duty and penalty. It is stated that the authority, to whom the documents were marked, refused to impound them by observing that the property covered by the agreements belongs to Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt and obviously, they sought to enforce Section 22-A of the Registration Act as amended by A.P. Act 19 of 2007 (for short 'the Act'). With this background, the petitioner sought to make the documents part of the record once again.

(2.) On behalf of the respondents, an objection was raised. Therefore, the trial Court heard the matter in detail and passed an order, dated 29.08.2012 refusing to receive the documents. It was observed that the person, who executed the agreements of sale himself did not have title and that though there is a mention as to delivery of possession, the agreements were not registered as required under Section 17 of the Act. Placing reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Burra Anitha vs. Elagari Mallava and others, 2010 6 ALT 128the trial Court took the view that a document, which is insufficiently stamped cannot be received even for collateral purpose. The said order is challenged in this revision.

(3.) Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the objection raised as to the registration of the documents is untenable, in view of the facility created under proviso to Section 49 of Registration Act. He further submits that the objection as to the insufficiency of stamp duty was addressed on earlier occasion and once the document has been sent to an authority under the Indian Stamp Act and he returned the same, it must be assumed that there is proper compliance. He contends that the trial Court was not justified in expressing its view on the question of title of the executant of the agreements.