THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4809 OF 2013 DATED 27th DECEMBER, 2014 Between:
Bhanoth Mangamma … Petitioner and Chitla Ram Reddy … Respondent THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4809 OF 2013 O R D E R The petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.112 of 2009 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon. She is aggrieved by the order dated 07.11.2013 passed by the trial Court permitting the plaintiff to admit in evidence Ex.A.11, an unregistered document dated 12.08.2009.
The suit, O.S.No.112 of 2009, was filed for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The plaintiff therein wanted to mark in evidence the unregistered agreement dated 12.08.2009 executed on a Rs.20/- non-judicial stamp paper. The defendant objected to the same on the ground that the document was unregistered and was insufficiently stamped. By the order under revision, the trial Court over-ruled the said objection and permitted the document to be received in evidence as Ex.A.11, subject to payment of stamp duty and penalty. Hence, this revision.
Initially, interim stay of further proceedings in the suit was granted by this Court on 10.12.2013 for four weeks. The last extension of this interim order was on 28.02.2014 for a further period of two weeks. It is however stated that the trial Court is not proceeding with the suit as on date.
The short question that falls for consideration before this Court is as to whether the subject document could be marked in evidence. Perusal of the said document reflects that it embodies an agreement entered into by one Bitla Yadagiri with the plaintiff in O.S.No.112 of 2009, whereby it was agreed that the nine inch pillars existing between the properties of the two parties would be shared by them and that Bitla Yadagiri would pay half the cost incurred whenever he used the wall and the pillars. The issue is whether this document was compulsorily registrable under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1908’).
Section 17 postulates that non-testamentary documents which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any right, title or interest, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property, must be compulsorily registered. Section 2(6) of the Act of 1908 defines ‘immovable property’ to include not only land, buildings etc., but also things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything which is attached to the earth.
The subject agreement clearly demonstrates that rights relating to the use of pillars and a wall embedded in the earth were declared as between the parties thereto. It also recorded consideration, as Bitla Yadagiri undertook to pay half the cost to the plaintiff, as and when he used the wall and the pillars. The document therefore qualified as a compulsorily registrable document under Section 17 of the Act of 1908. Section 49(c) of the Act of 1908 specifically mandates that a document compulsorily registrable under Section 17 should not be received as evidence of any transaction affecting property, unless registered. The only exception is when the unregistered document evidences a contract in a suit for specific performance or is evidence of a transaction not required to be effected by a registered instrument.
Neither of these exceptions applies in the present case. That being so, the trial Court erred in ignoring the fact that the subject agreement (Ex.A.11), being an unregistered document, could not be received in evidence given the embargo posited by Section 49(c) of the Act of 1908. The order dated 07.11.2013 of the trial Court holding to the contrary is therefore unsustainable in law and is accordingly set aside.
The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in the light of this final order. No order as to costs.
-------------------------------------
SANJAY KUMAR, J 27th DECEMBER, 2014
PGS