APHC010334202025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] FRIDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1784/2025 Between: 1. SWARNA RAMA RAO, , S/O.VENKATESWARLU, AGED 54 YEARS, HINDU, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O.D.NO.6-142, SWARNA VILLAGE, KARAMCHEDU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. SWARNA KOTESWARA RAO, S/O.ANKAMMA, AGED 51 YEARS, HINDU, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O.D.NO.6-142, SWARNA VILLAGE, KARAMCHEDU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 2. SWARNA SRINIVASA RAO, S/O.ANKAMMA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, HINDU, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O.D.NO.6-142, SWARNA VILLAGE, KARAMCHEDU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 3. SWARNA ANKAMMA, (DIED), 4. SWARNA NAGESWARARAO, , S/O.ANKAMMA, AGED 44 YEARS, HINDU, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O.D.NO.6-142, SWARNA VILLAGE, KARAMCHEDU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 5. SWARNA SUBRAHMANYAM, S/O.RAMA RAO, AGED 30 YEARS, HINDU, WORKING AS T.C. IN RAILWAY DEPARTMENT, R/O.D.NO.6-142, SWARNA VILLAGE, KARAMCHEDU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 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 toPetition is being preferred aggrieved by the order dated 03.04.2025 passed in I.A.No.836 of 2024 in O.S.No.12 of 2017 on the file of the court of Learned Junior Civil Judge, Parchur, Prakasam District, as illegal, without jurisdiction IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 all further proceedings in O.S.No.l2 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Learned Junior Civil Judge, Parchur, Prakasam District, pending disposal of the main C.R.P and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. NAGA PRAVEEN VANKAYALAPATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1784/2025 ORDER:- The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated 03.04.2025 passed in I.A.No.836 of 2024 in O.S.No.12 of 2017 on the file of the court of the Junior Civil Judge, Parchur, Prakasam District. 2. The petitioner herein is defendant No.3 and the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are plaintiffs and respondent Nos.3 to 5 are defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 in the suit. For convenience of the Court, the parties are referred as arrayed before the Trial Court. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Even though notices were served, none appeared for the respondents. 4. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner herein is that the plaintiffs instituted a suit for partition of suit schedule properties with false allegations and originally item No.2 of the suit schedule property in an extent of Ac.0.35 cents was purchased by the petitioner herein/defendant No.3 from defendant No.1 under agreement of sale dated 10.10.2016 and the said document is to be marked on his behalf and the said document was improperly stamped, as such stamp duty and penalty has to be paid on the said document. The petitioner further submits that the District Registrar, Department of Stamps & Registration Government of Andhra Pradesh, Bapatla is competent authority to impound the document to prove his contention and the said document is 4 critical piece of evidence and the same has to be exhibited on his behalf. Hence, the petitioner/3rd defendant filed I.A.No.836 of 2024 praying to send the agreement of sale dated 10.10.2016 to District Registrar, Bapatla for impounding and for collection of stamp duty penalty. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner purchased part of property vide an agreement of sale with possession dated 10.10.2016, since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the subject property. Plaintiff filed a suit for partition and this property is the item No.2 of the suit schedule property. The trial Court erroneously dismissed the application on the ground that since the petitioner herein/defendant No.3 is claiming that the subject property was acquired through an agreement of sale coupled with the possession, which is compulsory registrable document as per Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act,1908. Even though the plea of the petitioner was considered for sending the subject agreement of sale for impounding and to collect the insufficient stamp duty, but it still lacks registration, since it is a compulsory registrable document. Therefore, even after impounding the agreement it is not an admissible document under Section 79 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. As such even though the prayer of the petitioner in the subject interlocutory application is considered, still the subject document lacks registration and it would not be an admissible for evidence pursuant to Section 79 of the Indian Evidence Act. He submits that the finding of the trial Court is contrary to the judgment and ratio laid down by this Court time and again and relied upon the judgments of this Court in 5 V.S.Ravinder Raj and Others Vs. Siddala Narasimha and others 1 and Vanapalli Jayalaxmi @ Venkata Jayalaxmi Vs. Annem Kondalarao and others2. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and pursed the material on record. 6. Admittedly the suit is filed for partition between the coparceners of the joint family. The petitioner/defendant No.3 is paternal uncle and brother of the plaintiffs’ father. The claim of the petitioner herein/defendant No.3 is claiming exclusive rights over 2nd item of the suit schedule property. Therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to any joint family rights over item No.2 of the suit schedule property. For which, the petitioner herein relied upon a deed an agreement of sale dated 10.12.2016 under which he said to have been acquired the property along with delivery of possession. It is an admitted fact, that the agreement of sale is not suffered sufficient stamp duty and the said agreement was also not registered under Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act. The entire claim of the petitioner in his petition is that the said agreement should be marked for collateral purpose. For that the said document should be impounded for collecting the stamp duty as required as per the procedure contemplated under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act. It is observed that the court below rejected the claim of the petitioner herein on the ground that the subject document is not only suffers with insufficient stamp duty but also unregistered contrary to the Section 17 of the Indian Registration 1 2015 (3) ALT 221 (S.B.) 2 2014 (1) ALD 491 6 Act. As such, the finding of the trial Court that it cannot be an admissible document is not valid and sustainable in view of the exceptions carved out to the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (Amended Act 4 of 1999), where under as per Section 49 (2) and (B) the unregistered document can be admitted for collateral purpose. 7. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment rendered by this Hon’ble Court in V.S.Ravinder Raj and Others Vs. Siddala Narasimha and others, is extracted hereunder “5. Section 17 of the Act envisages documents of which registration is compulsory. Under the A.P. State Amendment inserted by Act 4 of 1999, an agreement of sale of immovable property of the value of 100/- and upward is made compulsorily registerable. However, through the same amendment, the A.P. State Legislature has amended sub-clause (v) of sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the Act, which reads as under : "Nothing in clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) applies to any document other than the documents specified in sub-section (1A) except an agreement of sale as mentioned in clause (g) of sub-section (1) not in itself creating, declaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing any right, title or interest of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property, but merely creating a right to obtain another document which will, when executed, create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any such right, title or interest." 7 In P. Veerraju v. Lakkaraju Indira Bai (1) C.R.P.No. 1726 of 2014, dated 20-9-2014 while considering this provision, this Court held as under : "The lower Court has overlooked the vital aspect, viz., as per A.P. Act 4 of 1999, the State Government of Andhra Pradesh has inserted clause-(g) to Section 17(1) of the Act by making the registration of agreement of sale of immovable property of the value of 100/- and upwards compulsory. Sub-clause (v) of sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the Act made exceptions to this rule. It has exempted two categories of documents from compulsory registration, viz., any document other than the documents specified in sub- section (1-A) and those which do not in themselves create,, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any right, title or interest of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards to or in immovable property, but which merely create a right to obtain another document which will, when executed, create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any such right, title or interest Reading clause (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Act along with clause (v) of sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the Act would mean that the agreements of sale of immovable property of the value of 100/- and upwards falling in the two exceptions referred to above are not liable for registration. In the absence of any finding that the suit document 8 does not fall in the two exceptions referred to above, the proposed agreement of sale is admissible in evidence. There is yet another reason for which the agreement of sale is admissible in evidence. The proviso to Section 49 of the Act carves out two exceptions for admissibility of the unregistered documents. Under the said proviso, an unregistered document, which is compulsorily registerable, is still admissible in evidence under two circumstances, viz., (1) if such document is filed in a suit for specific performance; and (2) the same is sought to be filed as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument. The present case falls under the second limb of the proviso because the suit being one for recovery of damages, even assuming that the document requires registration, the same can be admitted in evidence for collateral purpose i.e., for recovery of money and not for specific performance of agreement of sale. The lower Court has overlooked these crucial aspects in refusing to mark the document." 6. The ratio of the above reproduced Judgment applies in all fours to this case as the document in question being an agreement of sale simpliciter falls under sub- clause (V) of sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the Act. 9 Further, as the relief claimed in the suit is only for refund of the advance money paid under the agreement of sale, the document can be looked into for collateral purpose under the second exception contained in the proviso to Section 49 of the Act. The lower Court has completely overlooked this aspect.” 8. The relevant paragraphs of the another judgment rendered by this Hon’ble Court in Vanapalli Jayalaxmi @ Venkata Jayalaxmi Vs. Annem Kondalarao and others, is extracted hereunder “22. I am unable to agree with the view taken by him. The learned Judge does not appear to have noticed that under Article 47A, an agreement to sell “followed by or evidencing” delivery of possession of the property agreed to be sold is chargeable as a sale under the said Article. Thus, not only situations where the document in question itself mentions about delivery of possession (evidences delivery of possession) but also situations where delivery of possession is not mentioned in the document (but where such delivery of possession has a direct nexus to the agreement), are also covered. In B. Ratnamala's case (supra), the Division Bench laid down that the expression "followed by delivery of possession" should have a direct nexus to the agreement and should be read in juxtaposition to the word agreement and it cannot be independent or outside the agreement. Therefore, the delivery and possession should follow the agreement, i.e., through the agreement and in other words, the delivery of possession should be intimately and inextricably connected with the agreement. The Bench categorically held that the expression "followed by delivery of possession" would take in its sweep the recital in the agreement itself that delivery of possession is being handed over. 10 24. The Counsel for the petitioner also sought to contend that since the suit in the present case is for a perpetual injunction, possession of the petitioner on the date of the suit is alone to be considered, and for the collateral purpose of proving possession, the said agreement of sale could be received in evidence. This contention, although attractive, does not merit any consideration for the reason that there is a total and absolute bar under Section 35 of the Stamp Act as to admissibility of insufficiently stamped documents. This was considered by this Court in Thippareddy Obulamma and others v. Balu Narasimhulu and others (supra). This Court held : "13. In S. Reddy v. Johanputra, MANU/AP/0060/1972 = AIR 1972 AP 373 while dealing with the scope of Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, a learned Single Judge of this Court held: "While considering the scope of Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, we cannot bring in the effect of non-registration of a document under Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act. Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act deals with documents, the registration of which is compulsory and Section 49 is concerned only with the effect of such non-registration of the documents which require to be registered by Section 17 or by any provision of the Transfer of Property Act. The effect of non- registration is that such a document shall not affect any immovable property covered by it or confer any power to adopt and it cannot be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power. But there is no prohibition under Section 4) to receive such a document which requires registration to be used for a collateral purpose ie., for an entirely different and independent matter. There is a total and absolute bar as to the admission of an unstamped instrument whatever be the nature of the purpose or however foreign or independent the purpose may be for which it is sought to be 11 used, unless there is compliance with the requirements of the provisos to Section 35. In other words, if an unstamped instrument is admitted for a collateral purpose, it would amount to receiving such a document in evidence for a purpose which Section 35 prohibits. 14. In T. Bhaskar Rao v. T. Gabriel, MANU/AP/0081/1981 = AIR 1981 AP 175, a learned Single Judge of this Court observed: "It is now well settled that there is no prohibition under Section 49 of the Registration Act, to receive an unregistered document in evidence for collateral purpose. But the document so tendered should be duly stamped or should comply with the requirements of Section 35 of the Stamp Act, if not stamped, as a document cannot be received in evidence even for collateral purpose unless it is duly stamped or duty and penalty are paid under Section 35 of the Stamp Act." 15. In U. Subramanyam v. U. Dhanamma, 1999 (5) ALD 26 = MANU/AP/0559/1999, another learned Single Judge of this Court while dealing with the scope of Proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, observed: "From this it is seen that even if an unregistered document is produced before the Court a discretion is given to the Court to impound the document and admit the same in evidence. Proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act says that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required either by the Registration Act or the Transfer of Property Act to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter Il of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. As this being a suit for specific performance, as per the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, even if it is a sale deed, the same can be admitted in evidence. But the question of 12 admitting the same in evidence will arise only after the Court impounds the document as contemplated under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899…….. 18. From a combined reading of the judgments referred to above, in conjunction with proviso to Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, broadly the following would emerge: (1) An unstamped or insufficiently stamped document is inadmissible in evidence. (2) As per the proviso to Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act, an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required to be registered can be received as evidence either in cases referred to therein or to prove any collateral transaction. (3) If an unstamped or insufficiently stamped document coupled with the infirmity of being unregistered can be received as evidence for a collateral purpose, provided, the first defect under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, is corrected. In other words, an unstamped or insufficiently stamped document after duly impounded as prescribed under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 can be relied in evidence for collateral purpose." (emphasis supplied) 25. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the agreement of sale dated 29.2.1996 cannot be received in evidence unless proper stamp duty and penalty are paid as per Explanation-I of Article 47-A of the Act. The agreement of sale attracts the said explanation and has to be stamped as a "sale" as admittedly possession was delivered on 27.5.1996 after receiving the balance sale consideration as per it's terms. I am therefore of the opinion that the order passed by the trial Court cannot be sustained.” 9. In view of the ratio laid down by this Hon’ble Court, the order of the trial court is unsustainable and contrary to the law. Accordingly, the Civil 13 Revision Petition is allowed. The order dated 03.04.2025 in I.A.No.836 of 2024 in O.S.No.12 of 2017 passed by the trial Court is hereby set aside. Further the trial court is directed to proceed further in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. _________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 02.01.2026 TPS 14 251 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA Civil Revision Petition No.1784 of 2025 02.01.2026 TPS