Whether the trial Court committed any material irregularity in holding that the disputed deed does not require registration? -creation of right of easement by grant is not a transfer of ownership as contemplated by section 54 of Transfer of Property Act, and the easement by grant may be created by oral agreement and it may be gratuitous. There is nothing in law which necessitate the creation of an easement being evidenced by registered document.

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

THURSDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

PRSENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1797 OF 2015

Between:

1. C.SREEMATH S/o.C.Lakshmana Rao, Hindu, Occ: Business

R/o.D.No.12-5, Rajivgandhi Nagar Panchayat,

Tirupati Urban Mandal, Chittoor District.

...PETITIONER(S)

AND:

1. NARRA AUDILAKSHMI & 3 ORS W/o.late Narra Audaiah, Hindu

R/o.D.No.18-1-36, Santhi Nagar Colony,

K.T.Road, Tirupati, Chittoor District.

2. Narra Lalitha D/o.N.Prabhakar, Hindu

R/o.D.No.18-1-36, Santhi Nagar Colony,

K.T.Road, Tirupati, Chittoor District.

3. Narra Saritha D/o.N.Prabhakar, Hindu

R/o.D.No.18-1-36, Santhi Nagar Colony,

K.T.Road, Tirupati, Chittoor District.

4. Narra Thulasi D/o.N.Prabhakar, Hindu

R/o.D.No.18-1-36, Santhi Nagar Colony,

K.T.Road, Tirupati, Chittoor District.

...RESPONDENTS

Counsel for the Petitioner(s): V NITESH

Counsel for the Respondents: P JAGADISH CHANDRA PRASAD

The Court made the following: ORDER

2023:APHC:11964

BVLNC,J CRP 1797 of 2015

Page 1 of 10 Dt: 20.04.2023

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

****

C.R.P.No.1797 OF 2015

Between:

C.Sreemath,

S/o.C.Lakshmana Rao,

Aged 29 years, Hindu, Business,

R/o.D.No.12-5,

Rajivgandhi Nagar Panchayat,

Tirupati Urban Mandal,

Chittoor District. ….Petitioner/Defendant.

 Versus

1. Narra Audilakshmi, W/o.Late Narra Audaiah,

 Hindu, Aged 78 years.

2. Narra Lalitha, D/o.N.Prabhakar,

 Hindu, Aged 30 years.

3. Narra Saritha, D/o.N.Prabhakar,

 Hindu, Aged 29 years.

4. Narra Thulasi, D/o.N.Prabhakar,

 Hindu, Aged 28 years.

All are R/o.D.No.18-1-36,

Santhinagar Colony,

K.T.Road, Tirupati Town,

Chittoor District. ….Respondents/Plaintiffs.

DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED : 20.04.2023

2023:APHC:11964

BVLNC,J CRP 1797 of 2015

Page 2 of 10 Dt: 20.04.2023

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers

 may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No

2. Whether the copy of Judgment may be

 marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No

3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the

 fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No

 ___________________________

 B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI, J

2023:APHC:11964

BVLNC,J CRP 1797 of 2015

Page 3 of 10 Dt: 20.04.2023

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

+ C.R.P.No.1797 OF 2015

% 20.04.2023

# Between:

C.Sreemath,

S/o.C.Lakshmana Rao,

Aged 29 years, Hindu, Business,

R/o.D.No.12-5,

Rajivgandhi Nagar Panchayat,

Tirupati Urban Mandal,

Chittoor District. ….Petitioner/Defendant.

 Versus

1. Narra Audilakshmi, W/o.Late Narra Audaiah,

 Hindu, Aged 78 years.

2. Narra Lalitha, D/o.N.Prabhakar,

 Hindu, Aged 30 years.

3. Narra Saritha, D/o.N.Prabhakar,

 Hindu, Aged 29 years.

4. Narra Thulasi, D/o.N.Prabhakar,

 Hindu, Aged 28 years.

All are R/o.D.No.18-1-36,

2023:APHC:11964

BVLNC,J CRP 1797 of 2015

Page 4 of 10 Dt: 20.04.2023

Santhinagar Colony,

K.T.Road, Tirupati Town,

Chittoor District. ….Respondents/Plaintiffs.

! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri V.Nitesh

^ Counsel for the

 Respondents : Sri P.Jagadish Chandra Prasad

< Gist:

> Head Note:

? Cases referred:

1) AIR 1929 Madras 79

2023:APHC:11964

BVLNC,J CRP 1797 of 2015

Page 5 of 10 Dt: 20.04.2023

This Court made the following:

2023:APHC:11964

BVLNC,J CRP 1797 of 2015

Page 6 of 10 Dt: 20.04.2023

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1797 OF 2015

O R D E R:

 Heard the learned counsel for Revision Petitioner.

2) The revision is filed against the docket order dated

01.04.2015, where under, the learned trial Judge held that the

disputed document is not a gift deed and rejected the objection raised

by the Revision Petitioner/defendant that it cannot be received in the

evidence without registration U/s.17 of Registration Act, 1908.

3) The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner would submit

that as per contents of the disputed document one Brundavanam

Srinivasacharyulu on 07.02.1981 had conveyed right in immovable

property to the plaintiff for no consideration, and therefore it falls

under the definition of a gift deed, it requires registration as per

section 17(1) of Registration Act 1908.

4) None appeared for the respondents.

2023:APHC:11964

BVLNC,J CRP 1797 of 2015

Page 7 of 10 Dt: 20.04.2023

5) In the light of above contention of the Revision Petitioner, the

point that would arise for consideration in the revision petition is as

under:

Whether the trial Court committed any material irregularity

in holding that the disputed deed does not require

registration?

6) POINT:

The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of right of

way, and for a consequential permanent injunction.

7) The respondent/plaintiff in her evidence placed the impugned

document before the trial Court to receive in evidence. It was titled as

‘deed conferring passage right’. The revision petitioner opposed for

receiving the document in the evidence on the ground that it requires

registration. Hence, it is to be seen whether it is a document

transferring easement right or it is a document which requires

compulsorily registration.

8) The recitals of the disputed document would show that Sri

Brundavanam Srinivasacharyulu i.e executant permitted the adjoining

owner i.e respondent/plaintiff, to use executant’s passage, to reach the

2023:APHC:11964

BVLNC,J CRP 1797 of 2015

Page 8 of 10 Dt: 20.04.2023

back yard of the respondent/plaintiff’s house. Therefore, it is

manifestly clear from the recitals that there is no ‘transfer of

title/ownership’ of the property to the plaintiff. The intention of the

executant is only creation of right of easement, for no consideration.

While interpreting the document not only the contents have to be kept

in mind, but the real intention of the parties is also to be determined.

9) As per section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, there is no sale

unless transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised

to be paid or partly paid or partly promised to be paid takes place.

10) Therefore, in the impugned document there is no ‘transfer of

title/ownership’ of the property as is contemplated for sale under

section 54 or gift under section 122 of the Transfer of property

Act,1882. The disputed deed would show that it was executed for grant

of an easement only, and it was a gratuitous act.

11) The Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Musunoori Satyanarayana

Murti Vs. Chakka Lakshmayya and others1, held that creation of

right of easement by grant is not a transfer of ownership as

contemplated by section 54 of Transfer of Property Act, and the

easement by grant may be created by oral agreement and it may be

1

 AIR 1929 Madras 79

2023:APHC:11964

BVLNC,J CRP 1797 of 2015

Page 9 of 10 Dt: 20.04.2023

gratuitous. There is nothing in law which necessitate the creation of an

easement being evidenced by registered document.

12) Hence the impugned document in the case, does not require

registration. Therefore, it is admissible in evidence.

13) In that view of the matter, there are no grounds to interfere

with the finding of the trial Court. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition

is devoid of merits.

14) In the result the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There

shall be no order as to costs.

 As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed.

_____________________________

B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI, J.

20.04.2023

psk

2023:APHC:11964

BVLNC,J CRP 1797 of 2015

Page 10 of 10 Dt: 20.04.2023

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

C.R.P.No.1797 OF 2015

Note: Mark L.R.Copy

psk

20th April, 2023

psk

2023:APHC:11964