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