Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Instant regular second appeal has been filed impugning the order dated 15.2.1986 passed by learned District Judge, Faridabad, whereby judgment and decree dated 5.3.1985 passed by learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Palwal, has been set aside.

Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff/appellant's father deceased Charan Singh was the owner of a shop shown in letters ABCD depicted in red colour in the site plan. The said shop is situated within the municipal limits of Palwal. Defendant/respondent got the said shop on rent from the father of the plaintiff/appellant at the rate of Rs.200/- per month and house tax on 20.9.1978. The rent note dated 20.9.1978 was executed for eleven months. Defendant/respondent was said to be occupant of the shop as a tenant. It was alleged that Charan Singh, original owner, expired about 1 ¼ years back and plaintiff being the only legal heir and successor of deceased Charan Singh became owner of the shop in dispute. It was further submitted that defendant had not paid rent for three years ranging from 20.2.1980 to 19.2.1983 to the tune of Rs.7200/- plus house tax to the tune of Rs.660/-. Hence the suit for recovery was filed. On notice defendant appeared and filed written statement stating that plaintiff had no cause of action against the defendant. It was denied that plaintiff is the son of alleged Charan Singh. It was further submitted that neither plaintiff nor alleged Charan Singh has any interest, right or title in the shop in dispute. It was denied that the defendant took the shop in question on rent from alleged Charan Singh. The alleged rent note was alleged to be false, fictitious and sham document and not admissible in evidence for want of registration. Replication was filed denying the averments made in the written statement.

"The proviso is not applicable to the facts in this case and, therefore, it is not necessary to look into the exceptions engrafted vis-a-vis receipt of a documents comprising of three circumstances mentioned therein, namely, unregistered document used for enforcement of specific performance under the Specific Relief Act or used as an evidence of part performance of the contract under Section 53-A of the TP Act or using evidence for collateral transactions. The combined effect of all the provisions is that an unregistered leases deed executed from month to month for a period not exceeding 11 months, though reduced to writing and possession is delivered thereunder to a tenant, is not a compulsorily registrable instrument and, therefore, the prohibition contained in Section 49 of the Registration Act is inapplicable. Therefore, the document is admissible in evidence to consider the effect of the immovable property contained therein or to receive as an evidence of any transaction vis-a-vis such property."