ADMISSIBILITY OF A DOCUMENT =It is not in dispute that the agreement, which is sought to be enforced in the suit filed for the relief of specific performance, was registered. The document was got registered, obviously because of the requirement under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short 'the Act'). Once a document is registered, the cancellation thereof can be only through another registered document. Even if the Act or the Rules made thereunder are silent on this aspect, it is a matter of common sense that a registered transaction can be set at naught only through another registered transaction. Though the trial Court has referred to Rule 117 of the A.P. Rules framed under the Act, the said provision is mostly about the ministerial acts, than stipulating a requirement under law.= even if the document is not admissible in evidence, the trial Court ought to have taken it on record for collateral purposes. = Proviso to Section 49 of the Act itself creates such a facility. If a document, which is required to be registered, is not registered, it can be looked into for collateral purposes. It is a matter of common knowledge that a collateral purpose is the one which is other than the one which the document purports to bring about. Viewed in this angle, though deed of cancellation cannot be taken into account, for considering the plea of cancellation of the agreement, it can be relied upon by the petitioner in respect of any other plea, such as payment of the amount.- Therefore, the C.R.P. is disposed of, modifying the order under revision to the effect that the deed of cancellation shall be inadmissible to prove the act of cancellation of agreement, but it can be taken into account for collateral purposes.


THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY          

Civil Revision Petition No.518 of 2013
       
17.04.2013

Surisetty Revathi

Taladi Yalamanda Rao and others.

Counsel for petitioner: Sri Ravi Cheemalapati

Counsel for Respondents: SriM.Pitchaiah

<GIST:

>HEAD NOTE:  

?Cases referred

ORDER:

        The 1st respondent filed O.S.No.172 of 2007 in the Court of IX Additional
District Judge (FTC), Visakhapatnam, against the petitioner (1st defendant) and
respondents 2 and 3, for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of
sale, dated 16.11.2005.  The plea of the petitioner in her written statement was
that though the agreement was entered into,
it was cancelled at a later point of time.  The trial of the suit commenced.
The agreement of sale was taken on record.  However, when the deed of
cancellation is sought to be filed, an objection was raised by the
1st respondent, as to its admissibility.  The ground pleaded was that the
agreement of sale was a registered one and unless the deed of cancellation is
also registered, it cannot be received in evidence.  Through its order, dated
01.11.2012, the trial Court sustained the objection and refused to receive the
document. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the same.

Heard Sri Ravi Cheemalapati, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri
M.Pitchaiah, learned counsel for the 1st respondent.

It is not in dispute that the agreement, which is sought to be enforced in the
suit filed for the relief of specific performance, was registered.  
The document
was got registered, obviously because of the requirement under Section 17 of the
Registration Act, 1908 (for short 'the Act').  
Once a document is registered,
the cancellation thereof can be only through another registered document.  Even
if the Act or the Rules made thereunder are silent on this aspect, it is a
matter of common sense that a registered transaction can be set at naught only
through another registered transaction. 
Though the trial Court has referred to
Rule 117 of the A.P. Rules framed under the Act, the said provision is mostly
about the ministerial acts, than stipulating a requirement under law.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, even if the document is not
admissible in evidence, the trial Court ought to have taken it on record for
collateral purposes.  There is some strength in this contention.  
Proviso to
Section 49 of the Act itself creates such a facility.  
If a document, which is required to be registered, is not registered, it can be looked into for collateral purposes.  It is a matter of common knowledge that a collateral purpose is the one which is other than the one which the document purports to bring about.  Viewed in this angle, though deed of cancellation cannot be taken into account, for considering the plea of cancellation of the agreement, it can be relied upon by the petitioner in respect of any other plea, such as payment of the amount.

Therefore, the C.R.P. is disposed of, modifying the order under revision to the
effect that the deed of cancellation shall be inadmissible to prove the act of
cancellation of agreement,
 but it can be taken into account for collateral
purposes.    
There shall be no order as to costs.


The miscellaneous petition filed in this revision petition shall stand disposed
of.
____________________  
L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J.    
Dated:17.04.2013

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.