Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. During the course of evidence, petitioners wanted to mark three unregistered sale deeds Exs.B-18 to B-20 for collateral purpose during the further chief-examination of D.W.1.

5. It was the objection of the 1st respondent that these three documents being unregistered sale deeds, they cannot be marked by petitioners and other respondents, and the Court should hold that they are inadmissible in evidence.

4 MSR,J

6. It is the contention of the petitioners that these sale deeds had been revalidated by the District Registrar under Section 42 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 on 07-06-1997 and deficit stamp duty had also been collected thereon, and this makes them admissible in evidence. They contended that even if these documents are unregistered, they can be admitted for collateral purpose.

13. In Satish Chand Makhan (1 supra), an unregistered lease agreement was sought to be marked by plaintiff in a suit for eviction against a tenant and also for mesne profits. Defendant contended that it was inadmissible in evidence for want of registration under Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. The trial Court admitted the document into evidence and marked it for being used by plaintiff for the collateral purpose of proving the term of the subsequent lease under proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act and this was confirmed by the High Court. But the Supreme Court reversed it stating that an unregistered lease agreement is inadmissible in evidence except for the collateral purpose of proving the nature and character of possession of the defendant. It also observed that the terms of lease are not a collateral purpose within the meaning of proviso to Section 49 of the Act and for the said purpose, they cannot be marked in evidence.

14. This was reiterated in M/s.Sms Tea Estates P. Ltd (2 supra) and it was held that under proviso to Section 49, an unregistered document can be received evidence of contract in a suit for specific performance and also as evidence of any collateral transaction which 7 MSR,J by itself is not required to be effected by a registered instrument. It explained that a collateral transaction is not the transaction affecting the immovable property, but a transaction which is incidentally connected with that transaction. In that case, it was held that an arbitration clause was contained in an unregistered lease agreement, but the said deed is admissible to prove the said collateral term relating to resolution of disputes by arbitration, unrelated to the transfer or transaction affecting the immovable property. It also observed that it can be relied upon for the limited purpose of showing that possession of lessee is lawful.

20. This judgment was relied upon in Golla Dharamanna (6 supra) by this Court to hold that even if stamp duty and penalty was 12 MSR,J paid on an unregistered sale deed, the document would not be admissible in evidence to establish title to the property.

21. The contention of the learned counsel for respondents that the recital in the unregistered sale deed about delivery of possession is a term of the unregistered sale deed, and so it is not a collateral fact, cannot be accepted because as held in K.Ramamoorthi (4 supra), the Courts have been consistently holding that in a document of sale, possession is treated as collateral purpose affecting the immovable property and unregistered sale deed is inadmissible in evidence for the collateral purpose.