APHC010280792019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2779 OF 2019 Between: Kancherla Krishnappa ...PETITIONER AND M Ravi Kumar Reddy and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S S BHATT Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. G RAMACHANDRA REDDY The Court made the following: CRP.No.2779 of 2019 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2779 of 2019 ORDER : 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed in IA.No.298 of 2018 in OS.No.25 of 2013 by the II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is arrayed as defendant No.26 in the suit and he filed IA.No.298 of 2018 seeking to recall the petitioner/defendant No.26 for marking agreement of sale dated 26.03.1989 and a photocopy of the ratification deed dated 15.03.1989. The learned Judge dismissed the petition primarily on the ground that the documents proposed to be marked are not essential for collateral purpose and dismissed the interlocutory application. 3. The learned Judge also observed that one of the documents which was proposed to be marked was a photocopy and the procedure contemplated under the evidence act would have to be followed to attempt marking a photocopy of the document. Insofar as the unregistered agreement of sale dated 23.06.1969 is concerned, the same is not capable of marking in a suit for partition. It was also held that OS.No.25 of 2013 was filed for partition. As such, an unregistered agreement of sale cannot have any collateral purpose. The respondents 2, 3, 22 and 23 CRP.No.2779 of 2019 have contended before the trial Court that the petitioner within an intent to drag on the matter has come up with the petition which is not maintainable. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the suit is for partition the property forming subject of the unregistered agreement of sale and the subsequent ratification deed would be required for proper adjudication of the dispute amongst parties to the suit. It is also submitted that no prejudice would be caused to any party if documents which are also within the knowledge of the petitioner and the respondents are marked in the suit. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on C. Dasarath Vs. C.Yadaiah died1, this Court held that an unregistered agreement of sale may be admissible for collateral purposes under Section 49 of the Registration Act, provided the collateral transaction does not require registration. Solai Vs. Periyakaruppan2, the High Court of Madras held that unregistered, un-stand document can be marked and relied on by the party for the collateral purpose. It was also held that the Courts must mark an unregistered, un-stand document subject to objection of the opposite party. Tentu Ramakrishna, 1 Law Finder Doc ID#1600682 2 2014 LawSuit (Mad) 2559 CRP.No.2779 of 2019 Vizianagaram Dist Vs. Tentu Narayanamma, Vizianagaram Dist and others3, this Court held that the unregistered agreement of sale can be marked for limited purpose of proving the petitioner’s possession. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submit that the Civil Revision Petition is not maintainable and on account of pendency of the Civil Revision Petition, the suit is pending consideration from the last 12 years. It is also submitted that several respondents passed away during pendency of the proceedings before this Court and their legal heirs are brought on record. It is also submitted that the present CRP is filed only to drag on the trial Court proceedings. 7. It is submitted that Section 49 of the registration Act makes it clear at any document which requires to be registered as per Section 17 cannot be taken into evidence without the same being registered. The only exception for this is with regard to receiving of unregistered agreement of sale in a suit for specific performance of contract, but not in any other suits. The other except to this is that the unregistered agreement of sale must be supported by the principle document (the registered sale 3 Law Finder Doc Id#1517498 CRP.No.2779 of 2019 deed)the unregistered agreement of sale can be considered as a registered sale deed. 8. The learned counsel for the respondents’ places reliance on M.Panduranga Reddy Vs. N.Narasamma4, the High Court of Telangana held that the unregistered document which is required to be registered under Section 49 of the Registration Act cannot be admitted into evidence on the ground of collateral purpose/transaction for the reason that the document is sought to be admitted in evidence for proof of the transaction affecting the immovable property. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the material on record. 10. The petitioner sought for recalling the petitioner/defendant No.26/DW.7 in order to mark agreement of sale dated 23.06.1969 (unregistered document) and photocopy of ratification deed dated 15.03.1989. The interlocutory application is filed under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC. For marking a document as a secondary evidence, the provisions of sections 64 to 66 of the Indian Evidence Act would have to be followed which are evidently not followed by the petitioner. 4 2023 SCC OnLine TS 4564 CRP.No.2779 of 2019 11. Insofar as, the claim of the petitioner for seeking to mark an unregistered agreement of sale dated 26.03.1969 is concerned, OS.No.25 of 2013 is filed for partition of family property. No collateral purpose can be claimed to be achieved by the petitioner in proposing to mark the said document. 12. It can be understood if the pending suit is for specific performance which could have undoubtedly enable the petitioner to mark the unregistered agreement of sale. Collateral transactions within the meaning of the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act is the transaction other than the transaction affecting the immovable property, but which is in someway connected with it. The claim of collateral purposes does not instill the confidence of this Court as the proposed marking of the unregistered agreement of sale is certainly not supported by the main document i.e., registered sale deed. 13. The order passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle in is well-reasoned, well-considered and does not require any interference. 14. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Considering the pendency of the suit from the year 2013, the trial Court shall endeavour to dispose off the suit preferably within a period of six CRP.No.2779 of 2019 months from the date of receipt of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date:14.10.2025 KGM CRP.No.2779 of 2019 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2779 of 2019 Dated 14.10.2025 KGM