M NAGABHUSHANAM Vs. V SURESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st respondent filed O.S.No.13 of 2005 in the Court of the Principal District Judge, Kadapa, against the petitioners and the 2nd respondent (for short, 'the petitioners'), for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale, or in the alternative, for refund of the advance amount with penalty. Pleadings are complete and the trial appears to be in progress. The petitioners filed I.A.No.1672 of 2009 under Order 8 Rule 1(3) (sic.1-A(3)) of C.P.C., with a prayer to receive the document, an alleged agreement under which, the respondent and another person by name C.Sanjeeva Kumar are said to have stated that the petitioners have executed a sale deed in respect of the property mentioned therein, without receiving the entire consideration, and that the executants have undertaken to pay the balance of consideration, namely Rs.70,21,328/-, within the time stipulated therein. It was also mentioned that in case the amount is not paid as agreed, it shall be open to either party to have the recourse of law. The 1st respondent opposed the I.A. and raised objection to the admissibility of the document. The trial Court undertook discussion as to the admissibility at the threshold itself, and on consideration of the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties. Through its order dated 27.07.2009, the trial Court held that the document requires to be registered in law and since it is not properly stamped and not registered, it cannot be received. The said order is challenged in this Civil Revision Petition.

(2.) Sri K.Somakonda Reddy, learned counsel for petitioners, submits that the document does not confer any independent right on any party, and as such, it is not required to be registered in law. He submits that the document has only reflected the existing state of affairs and no independent transaction, has taken place through it.

(3.) Sri S.V.Bhatt, learned counsel for the respondent submits that serious legal consequences flow from the document in question, and since it relates to an item of immovable property, it was required to be registered and duly stamped. He contends that the view expressed by the trial Court does not warrant interference.