Telangana High Court
Smt M Mallamma, Medak Dist vs Smt. Mangali Yashoda, Medak Dist 2 ... on 23 November, 2022
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY
C.R.P.No.1779 OF 2016
ORDER:
This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 20.01.2016 in O.S.No.208 of 2010, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, wherein the trial Court rejected the unregistered sale deed dated 03.05.1991.
2. Heard Sri K.Govind, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G.S.Anand, Advocate for Sri Y.Ashok Raj, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record.
3. The respondents are the plaintiffs and the petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.208 of 2010 filed for eviction and arrears of rent. The petitioner filed written statement denying the contents of the plaint. During trial, the petitioner sought to produce the document titled as simple sale deed dated 03.05.1991, under which the petitioner claiming to be the owner of the schedule property. As the sale deed was neither properly stamped nor registered, the same was opposed by the respondents.
2
4. The petitioner sought to mark unregistered simple sale deed, dated 03.05.1991, for collateral purpose. But the Court below rejected the document in question on the ground that the petitioner is relying on simple sale deed as primary and core document to substantiate her case, which is unregistered, cannot be marked for any purpose. Challenging the said order, the present revision is filed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the unregistered simple sale deed can be admitted in evidence under Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 for collateral purpose. The trial Court committed error by rejecting the request of the petitioner to mark the said document. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in Bondar Singh v. Nihal Singh1 and judgment of this Court in K.Rama Moorthy v. K.Surendernath Reddy2.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the unregistered simple sale deed cannot be admitted in evidence 1 AIR 2003 Supreme Court 1905 2 2012 (6) ALT 786 3 and the trial Court has not committed any error in passing the impugned order.
7. The sole question that arises for consideration is; whether simple sale deed, dated 03.05.1991, produced by the petitioner can be marked and admitted in evidence for collateral purpose?
8. Before adverting into the issue involved in this revision petition, I am inclined to probe into the legal position governing the issue.
9. In K.Rama Moorthy's case (2 supra), this Court at para Nos.30, 31 and 32 held as under:
"30. Having culled out the legal propositions, the discussion on this issue will be incomplete if a few illustrations as to what constitutes collateral transaction are not enumerated as given out in Radhomal Alumal (2 supra) and other Judgments. They are as under:
a) If a lessor sues his lessee for rent on an unregistered lease which has expired at the date of the suit, he cannot succeed for two reasons, namely, that the lease which is registrable is unregistered and that the period of lease has expired on the date of filing of the suit. However, such a lease deed can be relied upon by the plaintiff in a suit for possession filed after expiry of the lease to prove the nature of the defendant's possession.
b) An unregistered mortgage deed requiring registration may be received as evidence to prove the money debt, provided, the mortgage deed contains a personal covenant by the mortgagor to pay (See: Queen-Empress v Rama Tevan20, 4 P.V.M.Kunhu Moidu v T.Madhava Menon21 and Vani v Bani22).
c) In an unregistered agreement dealing with the right to share in certain lands and also to a share in a cash allowance, the party is entitled to sue on the document in respect of movable property (Hanmantapparao v Ramabai Hanmant23).
d) An unregistered deed of gift requiring registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act is admissible in evidence not to prove the gift, but to explain by reference to it the character of the possession of the person who held the land and who claimed it, not by virtue of deed of gift but by setting up the plea of adverse possession (Varada Pillai (4 supra)).
(e) A sale deed of immovable property requiring registration but not registered can be used to show nature of possession (Radhomal Alumal (2-supra), Bondar Singh (15- supra) and A.Kishore (16-supra).
31. The above instances are only illustrative and not exhaustive. There may be many more situations where a transaction can be collateral to the transaction which affects the immovable property. The Courts will have to carefully decide on a case to case basis in the light of the legal principles contained in the above discussed and various other judgments holding the field.
32. When we apply the above crystallized legal position to the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that the unregistered sale deed is admissible in evidence for the collateral purpose to the limited extent of showing possession of the plaintiff. As discussed hereinabove, the Courts have been consistently holding that in a document of sale, possession is treated as collateral to the main transaction affecting the immovable property. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that for the limited purpose of proving the petitioner's possession, the unregistered document, which is impounded, is admissible in evidence."
5
10. In Bondar Singh's case (1 supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court at para No.5 held as under:
" The main question as we have already noted is the question of continuous possession of the plaintiffs over the suit lands. The sale deed dated 9.5.1931 by Fakir Chand, father of the defendants in favour of Tola Singh, the predecessor interest of the plaintiff, is an admitted document in the sense its execution is not in dispute. The only defence set up against said document is that it is unstamped and unregistered and therefore it cannot convey title to the land in favour of plaintiffs. Under the law a sale deed is required to be properly stamped and registered before it can convey title to the vendee. However, legal position is clear law that a document like the sale deed in the present case, even though not admissible in evidence, can be looked into for collateral purposes. In the present case the collateral purpose to be seen is the nature of possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. The sale deed in question at least shows that initial possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land was not illegal or unauthorized."
11. After considering the judgments and relying on the principles laid down therein, coming to the present case, the document in question is unregistered sale deed, which is admissible in evidence for collateral purpose to the limited extent of showing the possession of the respondents/plaintiff. The only defence set up against the said document is that it is unstamped and unregistered. It is not in dispute that the document in question is required to be properly stamped and registered before it can convey title to the vendee. However, as held above that the document in question can 6 be seen for collateral purpose to see the nature of possession of the respondents/plaintiffs over the schedule property.
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the view that unregistered sale deed dated 03.05.1991, if it is insufficiently stamped, the same can be impounded and can be admitted in evidence for collateral purpose. Therefore, the trial Court committed jurisdictional error in rejecting the document in question and not marking the same for collateral purpose in support of the case of the defendant. The impugned order, accordingly, is liable to be set aside.
13. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. It is, however, open for the petitioner to get the unregistered sale deed, dated 03.05.1991, impounded and on its impounding, the trial Court is directed to receive the same in evidence for collateral purpose. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
__________________________ A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J 23.11.2022 Nvl