The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the admission of an unregistered agreement of sale as evidence for a collateral purpose to prove possession. The Court held the admission was correct and the petition was infructuous.
Civil revision petition dismissed; connected C.R.P.M.P. disposed of as infructuous.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4999 of 2013
Dated: 11.07.2014
Between:
Smt. K. Seshikala and another
.. Petitioners
and Sri C. Kanaka Reddy (died per L.Rs.) and others.
.. Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. G. L. Nageswara Rao For Mr. G. Venkata Reddy
Counsel for Respondent No.4: Mr. K. Lakshmana Chary
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This civil revision petition arises out of docket order dated 29.10.2013 in O.S.No.500 of 2010 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District.
I have heard Mr. G.L. Nageswara Rao, learned counsel, representing Mr. G. Venkata Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and perused the record.
The petitioners filed the above-mentioned suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with their possession of suit schedule properties. The respondents resisted the suit and pleaded that in pursuance of an agreement of sale, they are in possession of the property and, hence, no injunction can be granted. In support of their plea, the respondents sought to mark the agreement of sale through D.W.2. The lower Court admitted the said document in evidence as Ex.B12 for collateral purpose. Feeling aggrieved by admission of this document, the plaintiffs filed this revision petition.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a perusal of the document in dispute shows that it contains a recital that the possession of property was delivered and that, therefore, the said document requires registration.
It is well settled that while an improperly stamped document cannot be admitted into evidence unless the same is impounded, an unregistered document requiring registration can be admitted into evidence for collateral purpose (See K. Ramamoorthi v. C. Surendranatha Reddy[1] ) .
In the present case, the respondents are relying upon the
agreement of sale in order to prove their possession. Therefore, this purpose being collateral to the purpose for which the document is executed, the same can be admitted in evidence. The lower Court has, therefore, rightly admitted the document in evidence for collateral purpose only. Hence, I do not find any error, either jurisdictional or otherwise, calling for interference of this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed.
As a sequel to dismissal of the civil revision petition, C.R.P.M.P.No.6907 of 2013 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 11th July, 2014 IBL
[1] 2012 (6) ALT 786
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an unregistered agreement of sale requiring registration can be admitted in evidence for a collateral purpose under O.S.
Whether the lower court erred in admitting an evidence document requiring registration for a collateral purpose.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
K. Ramamoorthi v. C. Surendranatha ReddyReferred¶17
K. Ramamoorthi v. C. Surendranatha Reddy
Smt. K. Seshikala
Sri C. Kanaka Reddy
C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
