BANGURU RAMATHULASAMMA Vs. YEDEM MASTHAN REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed by the first defendant in O.S.No. 284 of 1989 on the file of the District Munsif, Gudur questioning the impugned order dt. 22-2-1996 holding that the disputed document dt.20-11-1981 sought to be marked by the plaintiff as evidence on his behalf was held to be an agreement of sale and not a saledeed and therefore admissible in evidence.

(2.) The first respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit which was filed for the relief of permanent injunction relating to the suit property against the present revision petitioner, who is the first defendant and also against the second and third defendants in the suit. The plaintiff is alleged to have purchased the suit property from second and third defendants under the disputed document dt.20-11-1981 which is described as an agreement of sale. During the course of evidence of the plaintiff the said document was sought to be marked as evidence on his behalf and the learned counsel appearing for the first defendant who is contesting the suit raised an objection for marking the said document on the ground that the document is in the nature of a sale deed and not a mere agreement of sale, that it is unstamped and unregistered and as such it is inadmissible in evidence. The lower Court rejected such objection by the impugned order relying upon the decision of this Court reported in Tirunam Curappa vs. Naidu Ramana Reddy and holding that it is only an agreement of sale and not a sale deed. Questioning the said orders the present revision petition is filed by the first defendant.

(3.) Head both the Counsel.