Dismissed

Bobba Venkata Subba Reddy v. Boba Padmavati

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Sept 2023CRP/1325/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an order that held a document involving relinquishment of rights in immovable property required registration and stamp duty. The court declined interference as the trial court correctly treated the document as a transfer of title rather than a non-registrable family arrangement.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition No. 1325 of 2022 and interpolations were dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Bobba Venkata Subba Reddy Vs Boba Padmavati — Specific Performance | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

****

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶3

TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1325 OF 2022

¶7

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the Docket Order Dt. 09-05-201- passed in O.S.No. 147 of 2015 on the file of the court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Bobba Venkata Subba Reddy, S/o. Venkata Subba Age 62 yrs OCC cultivation. R/o. Govinda Palli Sirvel Mandal, Kurnool District

¶10

Bobba Gangadhar Reddi, S/o. Venkat Subbareddy, Age 29 yrs Occ. Cultivation,R/o. Govinda Palli Village, Sirvel Mandal. Kurnool District,

¶11

Bobba Venkateshwara ready, S/o. Venkat Subbareddy, age 27 Vrs Occ Cultivation.R/o. Govinda Paili Village, Sirvel Mandai^ Kurnool District.

¶12

Subbareddy, age 25 yrs, Occ. Cultivation.

¶13

R/o. Govinda Palli Village, Sirvel Mandal, Kurnool District.

¶14

...Petitioners/Defendants 1-4

¶15

AND

¶16

Bobba Padmavati, age 32 D/o. Venkat Subbareddi, Cultivatic. R/o Ramchandra Reddi Nagar. Near ST Johns school, Nandhyai town, Kurnool District.

¶17

...Respondent No.l/Plaintiff

¶18

Lingala Sarita, age 30 years WO. Laxmi Kanta Reddy, D/o. Venkat Subbareddi, Housewife R/o. H. NO. 23-91/3 Flat No.201 .Sri Krishna Niiayam Rangaredij, District, Telangana State.

¶19

Respondent No.2/Defendant No.5

¶20

{the 2"' Respondent is remained exparte in the court below and hence not necessary party in this C.R.P)*

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to grant stay of allturthe.r proceedings in OS No.147 of 2015 on the file of the court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Allgadda pending disposal of the

¶23

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶24

. Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to extend interim stay of all further proceedings in I.A.No. 1 of 2022 in C R P 1325 of 2022 dated 27-07-2022 in O.S.No. 147 of 2015 on the file of the court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Allgadda.

¶25

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶26

• under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders in I.A No. 1/2022 in CRP No. 1325/2022 dated 05-092022 pending disposal of the CRP.

¶27

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶28

• iu under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to / extend interim stay of all further proceedings in I.A NO 1 of 2022 in C.R.P no 1325 of 2022 dated 27/07/2022 in OS No. 147 of 2015 on the file cf the court of learned senior civil judge Allgadda.

¶29

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI. V. NAGESWARA RAO. V

¶30

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI. P. NAGENDRA REDDY

¶31

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶32

THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI

¶33

Civil Revision Petition No. 1325 of 2022

¶34

ORDER ;

¶35

The Civil. Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, against the order dated 09.05.2022, in O.S.No.147 of 2015 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda, holding that the document dated 11.08.2009 sought to be filed by D.W.l in his evidence requires registration and stamp duty as it is a relinquishment deed and therefore, it cannot be received in their evidence,' since the plaintiff objected marking of the said document. Having aggrieved by the order, the defendants No.l to 4 preferred the revision. R.l is the plaintiff and R.2 is the co defendant No.5 who remained exparte in the trial and is shown as not necessary party in the revision petition.

¶36

The revision petitioners contended that the trial Court grossly erred in holding that the said document is relinquishment deed without noticing that it was executed by a co-parcener (R.l) releasing her rights after receiving cash of Rs. 11,50,000/- and land of Ac.1.15 cents in survey No.629/2 of Sirivella village from the petitioners and so it is only a family arrangement to avoid disputes, but not a deed of relinquishment. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners reiterated the same.

¶37

¶38

BSB,J C.R.P.No.1325 of 2022

¶39

The leaned counsel for the 1« respondent submitted that by virtue of the document, immovable property of Ac.1.25 cents was given to her besides cash of Rs.11,50,000/- due to which she relinquished all her rights in the property of her father not to make any claim. In future. Therefore, the document is an outright relinquishment deed and requires registration under Section 17 of the Registration I Act and stamp duty as per the provisions of the stamp Act. 4. It is settled law that irrespective of the title given to a document, contents of the document would determine its nature. In the present case, the document Is titled as relinquishment deed. That apart, under the said document, the plaintiff addressed to her father that she received Rs. 11,50,000/- and his property of Ac. 1.25 cents from him and took possession of the land also on the same day and agreed not to raise any claim over his property in future. However, she did not make clear the properties in which she relinquished her right are movable or immovable properties. Registration is required only if the property in which right relinquished is immovable and its worth is more than Rs. 100/-. Therefore, the recitals in the document that she relinquished her right in the properties of her father would

¶40

BSB.J C.R.P.No.1325 of 2022

¶41

¶42

¶43

not require registration or stamp duty. Therefore,-by virtue of this document not only the rights in the rest of the properties of her father were relinquished, but there is a transfer of title in the immovable landed property Ac. 1.25 cents from her father to her and the value of the property is obviously is more than Rs. 100/- and therefore, such recital also falls within the scope of 17 of the Registration Act and the said recitals would require the document to be duly stamped as per the provision of the Stamp Act. Thus, it is apparent from the said document that it is not registered and bears deficit stamp duty as it was executed on non-judicial stamp worth of Rs. 100/- only.

¶44

Under these circumstances, the document cannot be said as mere settlement of dispute, but is a document evident title in the immovable property in respect of Ac. 1.25 cents and also the document relinquished her right over the rest of the property of her father.

¶45

The decision cited by the petitioner in Kale and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others^ wherein it was held that there is no need of registration of family arrangement, when oral or memorandum of past family

‘ (1976) 3 see 119

BSB,J C.R.P.No.1325 of 2022

¶50

settlement, but requires registration when terms of it are reduced into writing, cannot be taken as support in the present case as the document is not a mere memorandum of . past family arrangement, but it referred to conferment title in the immovable property of land of Ac. 1.25 cents. The other decision relied on by the petitioner in Kothuri Venkata Subba Rao and others V. District Registrar of Assurances, Guntur^ has no application to the present case. because, the document involved in the said case is among co owners of certain property relinquishing share of 1/4*’’ in favour of remaining six co-owners, whereas in the present case there is transfer of title in the immovable property. For the same reason, there is no application to the case on hand the decision in Yendapalli Venkataraju (died) and another v. Yendapalli Yedukondalu alias Venkateswarlu and others^ wherein it was held at para 29 as follows : "29. ... If the arrangement of compromise is one under which a person having an absoiute titie to the property transfers his titie in some of the items thereof to others, the formalities prescribed by law have to be complied since the transferees derive

¶51

AIR 1986 AP (42) 3 AIR 1958 AP 147

¶52

¶53

¶54

BSB,J C.R.P.No.1325 of 2022

¶55

their respective titles from the transferor. If, on the Other hand the parties set up competing titles and. the differences are solved by the compromise there is no question of one deriving title from the other and therefore the arrangement does not fall within the mischief of Section 17 read with section 49 of the Registration Act as no interest in property is crested or declared by the document for the first time. As pointed, out by the Supreme Court in Sahu Madho

¶56

Das V. Mukan Ram'':

¶57

"It is assumed that the title had always resided in him or her so far as the property

¶58

falling to his or her share is concerned and

¶59

therefore no conveyance is necessary."

¶60

In such an event the settlement need not be reduced to writing and even if it is embodied in a document it need not be registered."

¶61

¶62

Here in the present case the daughter is not setting up any competing title against her father and no such dispute was resolved. Therefore, the nature of the document in this case

¶63

1955-2 Mad U (SC) 1

¶64

¶65

BSB,J C.R.P.No.1325 of 2022

¶66

is not covered by the exception stated in the above observation.

¶67

Thus, the trial Court has rightly observed that the document is not admissible for want of registration and stamp duty and as such, the Impugned order does not require any interference. 8. In the result, the Civii Revision Petition is

¶68

dismissed.

¶69

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶70

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶71

Sd/- S.SRINIVASA PRASAD ASSISTANT REGI^RAR //TRUE COPY// -^SECTION OFFICER

¶72

¶73

To,

¶74

TJtie Senior CivilJudge, Allagadda, Kurnool District.'^ -zTOne CC to Sri. V. Nageswara Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. P. Nagendra Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies. - SGR g-. RftcKcw V -R- , Uiak

HIGH COURT

DATED:05/09/2023

ORDER

CRP.No.1325 of 2022

¶80

i 07001 2023

¶81