Allowed

R.Govinda Reddy v. R.Kodanda Reddy

Andhra Pradesh HC11 Jan 2024CRP/1571/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed a civil revision petition to set aside the trial court order that admitted a Kararnama as a deed of sale. Held that though the document may represent a sale, its admissibility regarding Section 53A TP Act and Section 49 RA must be determined at the appropriate stage per Supreme Court precedent.

What did the court decide?

The order of the trial court determining admissibility of the document as a deed of sale is set aside to the extent of that determination.

R.Govinda Reddy Vs R.Kodanda Reddy — Specific Performance | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶2

FRIDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1571 OF 2023

¶6

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the order dated 19.12.2022 passed in I.A.No.720 of 2022 in O.S.No.105 of 2010 by the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

¶7

Between:

¶8

R. Govinda Reddy, S/o. R. Chengal Reddy, Hindu, residing at 4-2069, Vellore Road, Greamspet, Chittoor.

¶9

...Petitioner/Respondent/Defendant

¶10

AND

¶11

R. Kodanda Reddy, S/o. R. Chengal Reddy, aged 79 years, Hindu, Residing at D.No.4-2069, Vellore Road, Greamspet, Chittoor Town,^{ChittoorDistrict.}

¶12

...Respondent/Petitioner/Plaintiff

¶13

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶14

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in O.S.105 of 2010 before the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor, Chittoor District.

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. S. PRANATHI

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent: SRI KRISHNA RAO PARITALA

¶17

The Court made the following Order:

¶18

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶19

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1571 of 2023

¶20

ORDER;

¶21

The respondent herein had filed a suit for specific performance of contract, for sale of the suit schedule property, by way of O.S.No.105 of 2010, in the Court of 11 additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor against the petitioner^herein.Inthe course of the trial, the respondent marked Ex.A3 by referring to it as an agreement of sale. At that stage, the marking^ofthesaid document was objected by the petitioner. Thereupon, the respondent moved l.A.No.720 of 2022 for deciding the admissibility of Ex.A3 as a preliminary point. The trial Court after considering the contents of the document and various judgments including the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.B. Saha and sons Private Limited vs. Development Consultant Limited., ^ had held that the document is only an agreement of sale and was admissible in evidence as necessary stamp duty has also been paid by treating the document as a deed of sale on account of the fact that decision is said to have been transferred under the document.

¶22

‘ 2008(^ ALD page 92

¶23

¶24

Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has moved the present Civil Revision Petition.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken this Court through the document in question. The contents of the said document show that the document while being titled a Kararnama of the sale, contains stipulations and conditions that the transfer of the suit schedule property is complete^andthat the transferee is entitled to utilise the land in any manner deems it fit including the right to alienate and sell the property. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion^thatthis document may amount to a deed of sale.

¶26

Learned counsel for the respondent has now produced a judgment of the HonT)le Supreme Court reported in^L_ Ameer Minhaj vs. Dierdre Elizabeth (Wright) Issar^. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering a similar document had held in paragraph No. 11 in the following terms:

¶27

“In the reported decision, this Court has adverted to the principles delineated in K.B. Saha and Sons Private Limited v. Development Consultant Limited, (2008) 8 see 564 and has added one more principle thereto that a document is required to be registered, but if unregistered, can still be admitted as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance. In view of this exposition, the conclusion recorded by the High Court in the impugned judgment that the sale agreement dated 9^^ July, 2003 is . inadmissible in evidence, will have to be understood to

¶28

' (2018) 7 see Page 639

¶29

¶30

mean that the document though exhibited, will bear an endorsement that it is admissible only as evidence of the agreement to sell under the proviso to Section 49 of^the 1908 Act and shall not have any effect for the purposes^of Section 53A of the 1882 Act. IN that, it is received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance^and nothing more. The genuineness, validity and binding^nature of the document or the fact that it is hit by the provisions^of the 1882 Act or the 1899 Act, as the case may be, will^have to be adjudicated at the appropriate stage as noted by the Trial Court after the parties adduce oral and documentary evidence.”

¶31

In view of the said observations, the order of the^trial Court is set aside to the extent of determining the admissibility of the document. However, the trial Court, in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court shall consider the admissibility^of the document at the appropriate stage. Needless to say, the trial Court shall take an appropriate decision without being^influenced by any of the observations made in the present order and strictly in terms of the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme^Courtinthe aforesaid case.

¶32