Disposed

Sykam Samrajyam, v. Viswanadhapalli Papa

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Dec 2022CRP/3433/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that with compliance of payment of stamp duty and penalty, the impugned order requires no further enquiry. Revision disposed of granting liberty to petitioner to pursue matter in trial Court regarding evidence of agreements under Section 49 Registration Act.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioner to pursue matter in trial Court as per law under Section 49 Registration Act.

Sykam Samrajyam, Vs Viswanadhapalli… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI

¶2

C.R.P. No.3433 of 2018

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the order dated 08-02-2018 passed by the Court of Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Avanigadda in I.A.No.718 of 2017 in O.S.No.93 of 2017 on its filed when two documents were sought to be filed in evidence in enquiry in I.A.No.718 of 2017.

¶5

Revision petitioner filed suit for permanent injunction and I.A.No.718 of 2017 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC for interim injunction. The petitioner sought to file possessory agreement of sale dated 14-03-1981 and another possessory agreement of sale dated 16-04-1991 and both documents were objected by the respondents/defendants. Then the trial Court observed that both the documents required registration and unless necessary stamp duty with penalty is paid, they cannot be received in evidence. Having aggrieved by the said order, this revision is preferred.

¶6

Sri G.V.Sriram Murthy, learned counsel representing Sri A.Giridhar Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that subsequent to the order impugned in the revision, stamp duty with penalty has been paid by the petitioner/plaintiff before the Registrar concerned.

¶7

¶8

C.R.P.No.3433 of 2018

¶9

Sri.P.Rajasekhar, learned counsel representing Sri K.Tulasi Durgamba, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 5, is present.

¶10

In view of compliance of the order of the trial Court dated 08-02-2018, there is nothing remained for enquiry in the revision petition. Learned counsel submitted that liberty may be given to the petitioner to pursue the matter before the trial Court since stamp duty and penalty were already paid, and a document which requires registration, but not registered can be received in evidence to the extent permitted under Section 49 of the Registration Act.

¶11

In view thereof, the revision petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to pursue the matter before the trial Court for taking the agreements dated 14-03-1981 and dated 16-04-1991 in evidence as per law under Section 49 of the Registration Act.

¶12

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶13

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶14

JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI

¶15

Date : 08-12-2022 SAB

¶16

¶17

C.R.P.No.3433 of 2018

¶18

THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI

¶19

C.R.P. No.3433 of 2018

¶20

Dt.08.12.2022

¶21

SAB

Sykam Samrajyam, v. Viswanadhapalli Papa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sykam Samrajyam, v. Viswanadhapalli Papa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nalam Venkata Manikya Rao (died) Vs Kadiyam Murali Krishna

Nalam Srimannarayana Murthy Vs Kadiyam Murali Krishna

V Prabhakar Reddy Vs Palagiri Reddi Sarada and Another

Ithamsetti Lakshmi Vs Kasireddy Mani Sankar

K. Neelavathi Vs J. Maheshwari

Kovvuri Nagi Reddy Vs Mudunuri Venkata Satyanarayana Raju