Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. The 2nd defendant in OS No. 164 of 1993 on the file of the senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar is the revision petitioner. He impugnes the incidental order passed by the said Court in O.S. No. 164 of 1993 dated 4-4-2002. Be it noted that while passing the said order, the learned trial Judge held that the unregistered gift deed dated 17-5-1988 produced by the petitioner during trial is not admissible in evidence.

2. The 1st respondent herein filed a suit for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. The petitioner herein who is defendant No. 2 filed a written statement alleging that the land admeasuring an extent of Ac.6.00 comprised in Survey Nos. 164 and 167 was gifted to him by the plaintiff and that he has been in possession of the said land since then. The matter went for trial. At that time, the petitioner on his own volition submitted the document before the Revenue Divisional Officer (Registrar) and the same was impounded for not paying proper stamp duty. Be that as it may, the plaintiff examined herself PW1 and marked Exs.Al to A4. The petitioner herein examined himself as DW1 and also examined DW2 and DW3. After that, he filed an application to recall himself for the purpose of marking the document dated 17-5-1988 under which the property allegedly in his possession was gifted to him. The opposite party objected for admitting the document in evidence as it was unregistered. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the document in question cannot be accepted in evidence even for collateral purposes as the suit is not for injunction where the only relevant issue would be as to who is in possession of the property and accordingly rejected the document.

3. Sri B. Narasimha Sharma, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that even without allowing DW1 to come into the box and explain as to what is the collateral purpose, it is improper for the trial Court to assume that the document cannot be marked for collateral purposes. He also submits that the document sought to be marked though is an unregistered gift deed, it comes within the scope of the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 ('the Act' for brevity) and therefore it is admissible in evidence.

9. The first two exceptions do not present any difficulty. However, the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the document in question falls in the third exception cannot be accepted.

As noticed an unregistered document not required to be affected by registered instrument can only be used for collateral purposes. If a transaction, which affects immovable property and requires registration either under the Registration Act or under the Transfer of Property Act cannot be proved by a document marked for a collateral purpose.

10. In this case, admittedly the document in question is a gift deed; as transaction affecting immovable properties and is required to be registered under Section 17(1)(a) of the Registration Act and therefore it does not fall under the third exception. The submissions of the learned Counsel is devoid of any merit.

11. In Amara Parvathi v, Peruri Chanti, (supra), his Lordship Sri Justice Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri (as he then was) considered the question whether a gift deed by way of Pasupu Kunkuma is admissible for a collateral purpose. It was held that a gift given as Pasupu Kunkuma under an unregistered gift deed cannot be said to be a collateral transaction and therefore the document is not admissible either under the proviso to Section 49 of the Act or under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act. In Dadi Reddy Sivanarayana Reddy v. Kasi Reddy Chinnamma, this Court considered various authorities and enunciated the following principles.