Dismissed

PulletikurthiNarayana Murthy, and 2 others v. PulletikurthiRamu at Ramulu, and 3 others

Andhra Pradesh HC19 Dec 2022CRP/5495/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision, the High Court held that an order permitting unregistered documents as evidence for collateral purposes (like possession) upon payment of stamp duty and penalty is correct in law, upholding the trial court's ruling.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

PulletikurthiNarayana Murthy, and 2 others Vs… — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI Civil Revision Petition No.5495 of 2018

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the order dated 07-09-2018 in O.S.No.73 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Tuni, by which the trial Court permitted unregistered sale deed dated 01-03-1972 and unregistered settlement document dated 15-06-1997 to be exhibited in evidence on payment of stamp duty and penalty, however with a rider that subject to objection with regard to the admissibility based on purpose for which the party relied upon the said documents, either for collateral purpose or for main purpose, and further stated that if the plaintiff relies on the said document for main purpose which is other than the collateral purpose to prove the possession, the same will be excluded from consideration

¶4

2. Having aggrieved by the said order, the defendants preferred the revision contending that the documents required registration as per Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act and therefore, they cannot be admitted in evidence for any purpose since non-registration is an incurable defect.

¶5

3. Heard Ponnada Sree Vyas, learned counsel for the revision petitioners. He reiterated the same ground that the documents cannot be received in evidence for any purpose for want of their registration, since they required registration as per

¶6

¶7

BSB,J C.R.P.No.5495 of 2018

¶8

Section 17(1) of the Registration Act. Neelopthal Ganji, learned counsel representing Madhavi Priya, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 3/plaintiffs submitted that the trial Court has rightly passed the Order in view of Section 49 of Registration Act which permits an unregistered document received in evidence for collateral purpose, provided the necessary stamp duty and penalty are paid as per the provisions of the Stamp Act.

¶9

4. There is no dispute about the fact that both the documents are unregistered and also both the documents require registration as per Section 17(1) of Registration Act. Section 49 of the Registration Act, though declares that the document which requires registration, if any registered, cannot be received in evidence, it provides exceptions that such document can be received as evidence of a contract for the relief of specific performance under chapter –II of Specific Relief Act or also for collateral purpose not required to be effected by registration.

¶10

5. Section 49 in The Registration Act, 1908

¶11

Effect of non-registration of documents required to be registered.—No document required by section 17 1[or by any provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882)], to be registered shall—

¶12

(a) affect any immovable property comprised therein, or

¶13

(b) confer any power to adopt, or

¶14

¶15

BSB,J C.R.P.No.5495 of 2018

¶16

(c) be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power, unless it has been registered:⁵⁴ [Provided that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by this Act or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 (3 of 1877)⁵⁵ ,⁵⁶ [***] or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument.] State Amendment Uttar Pradesh: In section 49,—

¶17

(i) in the first paragraph, after the words ―or by any provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882‖ insert the words ―or of any other law for the time being in force‖,

¶18

(ii) substitute clause (b) as under: ―(b) confer any power or create any right or relationship, or‖,

¶19

(iii) in clause (c), after the words ―such power‖, insert the words ―or creating such right or relationship‖,

¶20

(iv) in the proviso, omit the words ―as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, or‖. [Vide Uttar Pradesh Act 57 of 1976, sec. 34 (w.e.f. 1-11977)].

¶21

6. Merely because, the document can be received as evidence for collateral purpose under section 49 of Registration Act, it does not absolve the liability to pay stamp duty as per the provisions of the Stamp Act. Section 35 of Stamp Act provides

¶22

¶23

BSB,J C.R.P.No.5495 of 2018

¶24

that a document which is not sufficiently stamped cannot be received in evidence and Section 33 of the Stamp Act enables impounding of such document and if deficit stamp duty is paid with penalty as stipulated therein, such document becomes admissible in evidence. Thus, an unregistered document which can be used for as evidence of collateral purpose can be received in evidence provided the deficit stamp duty is paid in terms of Section 35 of the Stamp Act.

¶25

7. Thus, the trial Court rightly observed that both documents are admissible in evidence, provided necessary stamp duty along with penalty is paid. It further made it clear that both the documents, on such payment of stamp duty and penalty, can be looked into only for collateral purpose of possession, but not for the main purpose of transaction reflected in the documents. Since the purpose for which it is being received in evidence is also indicated by the trial Court, there is no infirmity in the order impugned in the revision. Therefore, the revision petition is dismissed.

¶26

8. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶27

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

¶28

closed.

¶29

____________________________ JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI

¶30

Date : 19-12-2022 SAB

PulletikurthiNarayana Murthy, and 2 others v. PulletikurthiRamu at Ramulu, and 3 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

PulletikurthiNarayana Murthy, and 2 others v. PulletikurthiRamu at Ramulu, and 3 others

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

d kannaiah (died) Vs p neelamma

Sri. Munavath Jayaram Naik, Vs Smt. Munavatha Sri Usha

Chavakula Venkata Subba Raju Vs Vanam Durgu Naidu

Raja Ramadevi Vs Chavala Adilakshmi

C Ns Kumar Vs H B C Sekhar

M. Hemanth Kumar Vs A.S. Nandeesh