LAW FOR ALL

Whether the objection of the revision petitioners is that since Haami Pathram creates interest in drawing the water from bode and since the subject matter of the suit is revolved around the said bode, it requires registration, and as such, it is inadmissible in evidence. = A Photostat copy of Hami Pathram has been placed before this Court. A plain reading of the same goes to show that the respondents have been drawing the water from the bode prior to execution of the Haami Pathram and the same was categorically asserted by the executant, who is vendor of the revision petitioners. The executant assured the respondents that they would not be obstructed from drawing water from the bode for cultivating of their lands, in the event of sale. In view of the same, it can be construed that a right is already created to the respondents for drawing water from the bode prior to execution of the Haami Pathram. Haami Pathram was executed only to continue that right. The respondents sought to mark Haami Pathram only to show a right was already created with regard to drawing water from the bode in their favour by the vendor of the revision petitioners and they have been assured to continue that right even in the event of sale. To that limited extent, the Haami Pathram can be marked as exhibit for collateral purpose. Further, Haami Pathram is not supported by any consideration. As per Section 17(b) of the Registration Act, the document is required to be supported by consideration of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards in immovable property. The decision of this Court relied on by the revision petitioners in Natrambaka Krishnaiah v. Nellore Audinarayana (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand because in the said decision the agreement/understanding is that petitioner-plaintiff would be permitted to formulate the channel from the land of respondent-defendant, and thus it creates right in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff therein, whereas in the case on hand, the right was already created and the Haami pathram was executed only to assure that the respondents shall continue that right in the event of sale by the executant. 7. In view of the above reasons and in the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned order does not suffer from any error or irregularity warranting interference from this revisional Court, and as such, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.