As seen from the document, it is styled as Sale Deed and there is no recital agreeing to execute another document in terms of the present document. Therefore, the document is an outright sale deed, which is unregistered, and the value of the document is Rs.14,600/ - and out of which, an amount of Rs.10,000/ - was paid on the date of execution while agreeing to pay balance on the date of execution of sale deed. Thus, it means that the vendor of the petitioners agreed to execute another deed, so it would fall within the meaning of agreement of sale and not outright sale deed. Therefore, the objection with regard to deficit stamp duty and penalty was complied, but only for non-registration of the document as required under Section 17 of the Registration Act, as amended by Andhra Pradesh Act, the trial Court rejected the request of the petitioners, but the Andhra Pradesh amendment to Registration came into force with effect from 01.04.1999 by Andhra Pradesh Act 4 of 1999, but the document in dispute is dt. 27.10.1995. Therefore, the document in dispute is executed four years prior to commencement of the Andhra Pradesh Amendment Act 4 of 1999 and consequently, Andhra Pradesh Amendment Act has no application to the present facts of the case. By the date of execution of the agreement of sale, the document in dispute is dt. 27.10.1995 and it is not compulsorily registerable document and Clause (D) of Section 17(1) of the Registration Act has no application. Therefore, the document can be received in evidence though it is unregistered, based on the objection regarding the admissibility, in view of the bar under Section 49 of Registration Act is untenable. Hence, I find that the trial Court committed an error in dismissing the petition to admit the document in evidence on behalf of
