GUDURU NIRMALA Vs. GUDURU ASHOK KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an Order dated 4-10-2004 made in O. S. No. 17 of 2000 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet.

(2.) The petitioner is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in the above suit, which was laid seeking declaration of title and for recovery of possession of the suit schedule house and also for cancellation of the decree passed in O. S. No. 654 of 1980 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Suryapet. During the course of evidence, the petitioner-defendant wanted to mark a simple agreement executed on a stamp paper worth Rs. 5.50 ps. and also the decree passed in O. S. No. 654 of 1980. At that time, the respondent - plaintiff raised an objection that agreement requires stamp duty, penalty and also registration in view of the nature of the recitals therein and the civil Court decree also requires registration. In support of his contention, the plaintiff relied upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh Major, AIR 1996 SC 196. After hearing both sides and considering the case law in this regard, the Court below held that the agreement does not require stamp duty or registration, and as such, it can be marked, but the decree in O. S. No. 654 of 1980 cannot be marked for want of registration, since the husband of the defendant was not having any pre-existing right in respect of the said house property prior to passing of the decree and the said decree creates rights, in his favour, for the first time. Aggrieved by the said order insofar as rejecting to mark the decree in O. S, No. 654 of 1980, dated 22-10-1980, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner defendant strenuously contended that the amendment of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short 'the Act') i.e. A. P. Act 4 of 1999, with effect from 1-4-1999, in any way does not alter the situation as to the validity and admissibility of a decree obtained by consent prior to 1-4-1999; therefore, it does not require registration for being marked and admitted in evidence before the Court.