CHIKKALA RAMULU Vs. VADDADI ATCHIYAMMA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner who maintained the suit for declaration and consequential permanent injunction in O.S.No.1224 of 2007 on the file of the VI Addl. Senior Civil Judges Court, Visakhapatnam against the three defendants since, as can be seen from the submission of both sides, sought for amendment of the plaint, from consequential injunction to the relief of possession setting up title by adverse possession, such amendment petition is still pending and thereby that is not of any further relevancy here for the purpose of revision. While so, in the course of trial, when plaintiff sought for exhibiting an unregistered sale deed dated 09.05.1974 which was undisputedly duly impounded before the District Registrar, Visakhapatnam vide application of the revision petitioner/plaintiff, dated 25.02.2015 of compliance of the order of impounding by District Registrar, by payment of the amount and therefrom the question of again considering the sufficiency of stamp duty before the Court does not arise once certificate is issued by the District Registrar of duly impounded the document that is since final, as per the Sections 38 to 42 of the Indian Stamp Act,1899, but for want of registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act (for short, the Act), for doctrine of part performance or for collateral purpose u/sec. 49 of the Act, from the objection raised by the defendants as inadmissible, upheld the objection vide order dated 18.12.2015 and it is impugning the same, the plaintiff maintained the revision.

(2.) The revision petitioner/plaintiff placed reliance on two expressions in K.Ramamurthy Vs. C.Surendranath Reddy, 2012 6 ALD 163 and M.Manjula Vs. Gajam Chandrayya, 2011 6 ALD 109 that were referred in the order of the lower Court in paras-4 and 5 which are in relation to unregistered sale agreement compulsory registerable in a suit for permanent injunction and declaration with consequential relief of injunction held admissible either for part performance of the contract or as to nature of possession. It is the submission on behalf of revision petitioner therefrom that the trial Court went wrong in not permitting to exhibit the unregistered sale deed for collateral purpose.

(3.) Whereas, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the defendants/respondents saying the order of the lower Court holds good and the character of possession cannot be considered as collateral purpose and the law is very clearly laid down by the Apex Court in K.B.Saha and sons (P) Ltd. Vs. Development Consultant Ltd., 2008 8 SCC 564 that was reiterated with approval by a subsequent expression of the Apex Court in S.Kalavathy Vs. V.R.Somasundaram, 2010 5 SCC 401 particularly at para-13 saying, the purpose culled out from said expression of Shah at para-34 as: