RAYADURGAM GURAPPA Vs. CHOWDAM KONDAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter is coming up for admission today. It is represented that Sri L.J. Veera Reddy had lodged a Caveat on behalf of the respondent/ plaintiff.

(2.) Sri V.R. Reddy, learned Counsel for the revision petitioners had made submissions at length to the effect that this is a suit for refund of consideration and for the relief of specific performance. The learned Counsel also would submit that in the light of the amendment introduced by A.P. Amendment Act 4 of 1999, an agreement of sale of the value of the immovable property of more than Rs.100/- is compulsorily registerable under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 and in view of the nature of the suit, the proviso to Section 49 of the Act cannot be made applicable. The Counsel also would submit that even otherwise the document in question is liable for stamp duty and penalty.

(3.) Per contra, Sri L.J. Veera Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the respondent-plaintiff would submit that in view of the lack of marketable title or defective title, the respondent/plaintiff had thought of instituting the suit for refund of consideration and also for damages and in the light of the nature of the prayer sought for in the suit, the document in question would definitely fall under collateral transaction though the same cannot be received under the former portion of the proviso to Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908.