Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

13. There   is   only   one   aspect   of   the   matter   which   needs consideration,   i.e.,   whether   the   document   dated   09.09.1994 which   was   inadmissible   in   evidence   could   have   been   used  for any   collateral   purpose.   In   a   suit   for   partition,   an unregistered   document   can   be   relied   upon   for   collateral purpose   i.e.   severancy   of   title,   nature   of   possession   of various shares but not for the primary purpose i.e. division of joint properties by metes and bounds. Further, an unstamped instrument is not admissible in evidence even for collateral purpose,   until   the   same   is   impounded.   A   two­Judge   Bench judgment of this Court in  Yellapu Uma Maheswari and another vs. Buddha Jagadheeswararao and others, (2015) 16 SCC 787, is appropriate. In the above case also admissibility of documents Ext. B­21 dated 05.06.1975 a deed of memorandum and Ext. B­22 dated   04.06.1975   being   an   agreement   between   one   late Mahalakshamma,   respondent   No.1­plaintiff   and   appellant No.1­defendant   came   for   consideration.   Objection   was   taken regarding   admissibility   which   was   upheld   both   by   the   High Court and trial court. Matter was taken up by this Court. In the above case, this Court held that the nomenclature given to the   document   is   not   decisive   factor   but   the   nature   and substance   of   the   transaction   has   to   be   determined   with reference   to   the   terms   of   the   documents.   This   Court   after considering both the documents, B­21 and B­22 held that they require registration. In paragraph 15 following was held:

14. After   holding   the   said   documents   as   inadmissible,   this Court further proceeded to consider the question as to whether the   documents   B­21   and   B­22   can   be   used   for   any   collateral purpose.   In   the   above   context   the   Court   accepted   the submission of the appellant that the documents can be looked into   for   collateral   purpose   provided   appellant­defendant   to pay the stamp duty together with penalty and get the document impounded.   In   paragraphs   16   and   17   following   has   been   laid down:

“16.  Then   the   next   question   that   falls   for consideration is whether these can be used for any collateral purpose. The larger Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Chinnappareddigari Peda   Mutyala   Reddy  v.  Chinnappareddigari Venkata   Reddy(AIR   1969   AP   242)  has   held   that the   whole   process   of   partition   contemplates three phases i.e. severancy of status, division of   joint   property   by   metes   and   bounds   and nature   of   possession   of   various   shares.   In   a suit   for   partition,   an   unregistered   document can be relied upon for collateral purpose i.e. severancy   of   title,   nature   of   possession   of various shares but not for the primary purpose i.e. division of joint properties by metes and bounds.   An   unstamped   instrument   is   not admissible   in   evidence   even   for   collateral purpose, until the same is impounded. Hence, if the   appellant­defendant   want   to   mark   these documents for collateral purpose it is open for them   to   pay   the   stamp   duty   together   with penalty and get the document impounded and the trial   court   is   at   liberty   to   mark   Exts.   B­21 and   B­22   for   collateral   purpose   subject   to proof and relevance.
17.  Accordingly,   the   civil   appeal   is   partly allowed   holding   that   Exts.   B­21   and   B­22   are admissible   in   evidence   for   collateral   purpose subject   to   payment   of   stamp   duty,   penalty, proof and relevancy.”

15. Following   the   law   laid   down   by   this   Court   in   the   above case, we are of the opinion that document dated 09.09.1994 may be admissible in evidence for collateral purpose provided the appellant get the document impounded and to pay the stamp duty together with penalty as has been directed in the above case.