* The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy
+ Civil Revision Petition No.2311 of 2014
Dated 14.08.2014
% Between:
# N.Kusuma Harinath Babu Reddy …Petitioner And $ K.Prasuna and 3 others …Respondents ! Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.P.Madhusudhana Reddy Counsel for the respondents: ---
< Gist:
> Head Note
? Cases referred:
The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Civil Revision Petition No.2311 of 2014
Dated 14.08.2014
Between:
N.Kusuma Harinath Babu Reddy …Petitioner/2nd Plaintiff And K.Prasuna and 3 others …Respondents/D1 to D3, plaintiff No.1 Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.P.Madhusudhana Reddy Counsel for the respondents: ---
The Court made the following:
Order:
This Civil Revision Petition arises out of Order, dated 03-06-2014, in OS.No.451 of 2006, on the file of the Court of the learned VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.
The petitioner along with another person has filed the above-mentioned suit for declaration of title and possession and for perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. During the trial, the respondents/defendants wanted to introduce a deed, dated 15-04-2002. The petitioner objected to the admissibility of the said document on the ground that the same was neither registered nor properly stamped. The said objection was rejected by the lower Court on the ground that the document proposed to be marked is only an understanding/agreement between the parties; that therefore, it does not require any registration; and that it was properly stamped.
At the hearing, Mr.P.Madhusudhana Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, while admitting that the stamp duty paid by respondent No.3 on the subject document is sufficient for an agreement, however, has stated that as the recitals of the said document affect the immovable property, the same requires registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short ‘the Act’).
I have carefully perused the document in question. It is titled as ‘Settlement’. However, it contains the following sub-heading:
“The Agreement to settle is made and executed at Bangalore on the 16th day of April, 2002.”
In the last Para of the document, it is recited as under:
“And whereas the party of the 1st part shall deposit the above said amount and gift the site measuring approximately 311 square yards within six months from the date of this agreement. And the cases will also be withdrawn by the party of the second party simultaneously at the time of registration of the site.”
It is trite that nature of a document cannot be determined merely based on its description. The true purport of a document can be understood by reading it as a whole. Though the subject document is titled as ‘Settlement’, the very opening words indicate that it was only an agreement to settle certain immovable properties in future. This intention of the executant is further amplified by the last recital of the subject document reproduced herein before, wherein it is categorically agreed that the executant thereof i.e., respondent No.3 herein, shall deposit an amount of Rs.4 lakhs as mentioned therein and also give away the site mentioned therein by way of gift within six months from the date of its execution.
Section 17 of the Act specified the documents, which require registration. Under Clause (a) Sub-Section 1 thereof, instruments of gift of immovable property require registration. Under Clause (b) other non-testamentary instruments, which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property, also require registration. Under this provision, a right has to be created or extinguished whether in present or in future and whether such right is vested or contingent, by the very document itself in order that a document is attracted by it.
A proper reading of the subject document shows that the same by itself would not create any right whether vested or contingent in respondent No.2 either in present or in future. It is only an agreement to do a certain thing in future by the executant.
Under Section 49 of the Act, no document, required by Section 17 or by any provisions under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, to be registered, shall affect any immovable property comprised therein, unless it has been registered and the same shall not be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power.
In the instant case, all that the subject document purports to create a right in respondent No.2 is to insist on specific performance of the same under which respondent No.3 agreed to deposit a sum of Rs.4 lakhs and execute a gift deed in respect of the site mentioned therein. The said document, therefore, per se does not either create any right or affect any immovable property without execution of another document in future. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the subject document does not require any registration. As the subject document is, admittedly, sufficiently stamped, the same is admissible in evidence as an agreement.
For the above-mentioned reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
As a sequel, CRPMP.No.3226 of 2014, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.
(C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) Dt: 14th August, 2014
Note:
LR copies (B/o) LUR