MULLA ALAMSABGARI DASTIGIRI Vs. B PULLAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is filed challenging the docket order dated 19-8-2003 passed by the court of Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda in O.S.No. 15/2001. By the impugned order, the court below overruled the objection raised by the 1st defendant while recording the evidence of P.W.1, with regard to admissibility of a document i.e., a conveyance agreement. Aggrieved by the same, the 1st defendant filed this revision petition.

(2.) It is settled law that any document can be received by the court subject to objection and a finding can be recorded with regard to its admissibility and, if aggrieved, the same can be challenged in appeal. From the record it could be seen that in the evidence of P.W.1, an unregistered re-conveyance document was sought to be marked and the 1 st defendant objected to the marking of the same, on the ground that the said document was not registered. As stated above, the court below overruled the objection of the 1st defendant and allowed the document to be marked on the ground that registration is not required for re-conveyance agreement under Section 17 of the Registration Act.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the re-conveyance document in question creates right in immovable property and hence the same is compulsorily registrable and as the said document was not registered, the same ought not have been received in evidence. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Kashinath Bhaskar v. Bhaskar Vishweshwar wherein it was held at paragraph No.16 that if the document itself creates an interest in immovable property, the fact that it contemplates the execution of another document will not exempt it from registration under Section 17(2)(v) of the Registration Act, 1908.