Madras High Court
Selvaraj vs Radhakrishnan on 13 July, 2015
Author: M.Duraiswamy
Bench: M.Duraiswamy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 13.07.2015 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY C.R.P.(PD).No.1722 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013 1.Selvaraj 2.Rajendran ... Petitioners Vs. Radhakrishnan ... Respondent Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 01.02.2013 made in I.A.No.621 of 2012 in O.S.No.533 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Villupuram. For Petitioners : Ms.R.Meenal For Respondent : Mr.Bharathachakravarthy for M/s.Sai Bharath & Ilan O R D E R
Challenging the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.621 of 2012 in O.S.No.533 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Villupuram, the plaintiffs have filed the above Civil Revision Petition.
2.The plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S.No.533 of 2010 for permanent injunction stating that they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. The defendant filed his written statement and is contesting the suit.
3.When the suit was taken up for trial, the plaintiffs marked an un-registered Lease Deed dated 15.03.2006 as Ex.A7. As per the Lease Deed, the term of the lease was for a period of three years. Hence, the document is compulsorily registrable under the Registration Act. Thereafter, the defendant took out an application in I.A.No.621 of 2012 to reject Ex.A7 document, since the same was not registered. The application filed by the defendant was opposed by the plaintiffs. The trial Court, taking into consideration the case of both parties, allowed the application finding that a document can be marked for collateral purpose, when the purpose of marking the document Ex.A7 by the plaintiffs was to establish their possession of the suit property, it cannot be termed as for collateral purpose. The main purpose of the suit itself was for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession and enjoyment of the suit property. That being the case, in order to establish their possession and enjoyment of the suit property, the plaintiffs sought to mark Ex.A7. Therefore, marking of Ex.A7 cannot be construed as for collateral purpose. The finding of the trial Court that an un-registered document cannot be marked for collateral purpose, is perfectly correct.
4.In the judgment reported in (2010) 5 Supreme Court Cases 401 [S.Kaladevi Vs. V.R.Somasundaram and Others], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
(2008) 8 SCC 564 This Court then culled out the following principles:-
1.A document required to be registered, if unregistered is not admissible into evidence under Section 49 of the Registration Act.
2.Such unregistered document can however be used as an evidence of collateral purpose as provided in the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act.
3.A collateral transaction must be independent of, or divisible from, the transaction to effect which the law required registration.
4.A collateral transaction must be a transaction not itself required to be effect by a registered document, that is, a transaction creating, etc. any right, title or interest in immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards.
5.If a document is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration, none of its terms can be admitted in evidence and that to use a document for the purpose of proving an imported clause would not be using it as a collateral purpose. To the aforesaid principles, one more principle may be added, namely, that a document required to be registered, if unregistered, can be admitted in evidence as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance. The ratio laid down by the Apex Court squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is also pertinent to note that a document can be rejected under Order 13 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code.
5.In these circumstances, I do not find any error or irregularity in the order passed by the trial Court. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Index : No 13.07.2015 Internet : Yes va To The Principal District Munsif Court, Villupuram. M.DURAISWAMY,J. va C.R.P.(PD).No.1722 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013 13.07.2015