V VENKATAREDDY Vs. K MANGAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in the suit O.S. No. 370 of 88 on the file of the Prl. Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada filed this revision petition against the order dated 20-7-1993 on the Memo filed by the plaintiff.

(2.) The brief facts leading to filing of this revision petition are: The defendant- petitioner herein wanted to rely on an agreement of sale dated 10-6-1967 said to have been executed by the plaintiff-respondent and her daughter in favour of the defendant and wants to get the said document to be marked on his side. At that stage the plaintiff filed a memo stating that the document was never executed by the plaintiff and her daughter; that it is a fabrica ted one and that it is not genuine and valid. She also challenged 'the admissibility of the said deed on the ground that i t was an unregistered one conferring and extinguishing the rights in the immovable property and that the said deed seems to be an instrument of transfer of right, title or interest in the immovable property, it cannot be marked and looked into as it is not registered. The defendant filed objections to the said memo stating that the document does not contravene the provisions of the Indian Registration Act; that the document was not styled as agreement of sale; that it contemplates the execution of a proper sale deed; that it is a genuine one.

(3.) The Court below, after hearing the arguments of the Counsel for both sides, came to the conclusion that the recitals of the document attract the ingredients of Sections 17(1) and 49 of the Registration Act and that the document has to be compulsorily registered and as the document was not registered, he rejected the document for want of registration and allowed the memo. Against that the present revision is filed.