MOTU SUBBA RAO Vs. RAMALAYAM TRUST BOARD GANAPAVARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the issue arises for consideration in all these revisions is one and the same, they can be disposed of by a common order.

(2.) The revision petitioners, who claim to have been in occupation of the shops belonging to the Ramalayam Trust Board -1st respondent, instituted O.S.No.650 of 2003 for declaration that they are the tenants and are having occupancy rights in respect of the schedule property i.e., shops and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property, unless and until the defendants resort to due process for their eviction. Pending disposal of the suit, they have filed Interlocutory Applications under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking an ex parte prohibitory injunction against the respondents restraining them from interfering with the petitioners' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. In the said suit, the lower Court granted ad interim ex pane injunction and when the IAs. were taken up for hearing, the petitioners, who alleged to be the tenants, intended to mark a document, namely, deed for acceptance, dated 15-5-2003, as an exhibit, for which, the respondents/defendants objected stating that it is not sufficiently stamped and it requires registration under Article 31 of the Stamp Act and Section 17 of the Registration Act. The lower Court sustained the said objection, vacated the ad interim ex parte injunction and dismissed the I.A. holding that the agreement, if any, is only to let out the shop premises and that the suit itself is for the relief of declaration that the plaintiffs are the tenants and they were issued lease deeds and that without registering the lease deeds, which is made compulsory in view of the amendment made to Section 17 of the Registration Act (AP Act 4 of 1999) with effect from 1-4-1999, the plaintiffs cannot maintain the suit nor any declaration can be granted in their favour and accordingly, they are not entitled to the order of ex parte prohibitory injunction. Aggrieved by the same, the present revisions are filed.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners strenuously contends that since the landlord and the tenants entered into an agreement, whereunder, the tenants agreed to vacate the premises and after reconstruction, the landlord agreed to handover the premises to the tenants, the same need not be registerable under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act. In this regard, the learned Counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in Sohanlal v. Madsetti Kistaiah, 1988 (2) ALT 354. Learned Counsel further contends that the Court while granting leave for production of the documents cannot go into the admissibility or relevancy of the documents, but it can only be gone into at the time of hearing of the suit, as held by this Court in a judgment reported in Sirugudi Adinarayana v. Bodla Mariamma, 2004 (1) ALD 440.