Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: unregistered document in M/S Shiv Shambhu Pictures Pvt. Ltd. vs Lokeshwar Prasad & Others on 11 September, 2015Matching Fragments
23. In Rattan Chand deceased represented by his widow & Ors. Vs. L.Bhagirath Ram deceased represented by his widow & Ors., AIR 1963 P & H 182, a Division Bench of Punjab High Court, in para 7 of the judgment, said:
"It is clear that the first part of the proviso expressly contemplates a situation where a document required to be registered by law but not so registered may still be received as evidence of a contract if specific performance of the contract is sought, so that it is not at all right to say that an unregistered document can never be looked at far any purpose connected with the property mentioned by the unregistered document. It is also clear from the third part of the proviso that as evidence of a collateral transaction an unregistered document Is equally admissible in evidence. It is common ground now that an agreement to sell Immovable property is not required by law to be registered and although there may have been some doubt about this matter prior to 1927, no doubt is left in that connection by the Explanation to Section 17 of the Registration Act which was put into the Act in 1927, and that expressly provides that an agreement to sell immovable property is not required to be registered. Mr. Aggarwal's argument in substance is that an agreement to sell Immovable property is a transaction affecting that property because it refers to and deals with the property. There is, however, no indication in Section 49 of the Registration Act to support the view that every transaction, which may happen to concern immovable property, is a transaction 'affecting' such property, and it would not in the ordinary sense be so. What is apparently shut out by Section 49 is the proof through an unregistered document of a transaction which has effect, direct and immediate, on some immovable properly. An agreement to sell immovable properly has as such and by itself no effect on the immovable property comprised in the agreement. It is only an agreement and like any other agreement capable of being enforced and equally capable of being the basis of a suit for damages in case breach occurs. It is significant to note in this connection that Section 45, as it is worded, does not make an unregistered document, even it it 'affects' immovable property, wholly inadmissible in evidence put only rules it out for certain specific purposes and the prohibition cannot, of course, be extended by implication. As I read Section 49 in the light of the proviso, there is, I find, nothing In it to prevent a party from showing from an unregistered document that an agreement to sell immovable property had actually been reached between the parties, even if that document be a deed of sale and consequently useless for proving the sale itself."
26. It is, thus, evident that an unregistered document can be looked into for collateral purposes, though, otherwise, it is inadmissible in evidence. A "collateral purpose" is such which is not required to be evidenced or affected by a registered document.
27. In M. Chelamayya Vs. M. Venkataratnam (supra), the Court held that under proviso to Section 49, the Court can admit any unregistered document as evidence of a "collateral transaction".
28. In Padma Vithoba Chakkayya Vs. Mohd. Multani AIR 1963 SC 70, the Court said that if the document was not registered, it is not admissible in evidence except to show the character of possession of vendee. The unregistered document, thus, can be taken into consideration for a limited purpose and not otherwise.
"10. Section 49 of the Registration Act, therefore, puts a complete bar to the admission of a document evidencing the terms of contract for which registration is compulsorily required by Section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act or Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act. As to the duration for which a lease is given or about the rate of rent, a document unregistered cannot be taken into evidence inasmuch as relying upon an unregistered document for these purposes would result in nullifying the prohibition or the bar imposed by Section 49. Section 49 prohibits the reception into evidence of any document affecting any immovable property. Under the Proviso to the said Section 49, only so long as an unregistered document does not purport or operate to do anything said in Section 107, the same may be considered by a Court. But, the terms and conditions on which an immovable property is leased out and which is an integral part of the same, the law does not permit such a document to be admitted for those purposes."
"This Court finds that permitting document to be received in evidence for limited purpose as such would not have the effect of influencing the rights of the parties vis a vis the immovable property concerned. The general legislative policy under Section 49 of Act, 1908 is contained in three clauses i.e. (a), (b) and (c) and proviso carves out an exception in respect to clause (c) only and not (a) and (b) thereof. The inevitable conclusion vis a vis the immovable property concerned is that, an unregistered document shall not result in affecting the right etc. over the immovable property in any manner and also shall not confer any power to adopt it. To the extent the proviso operates, it permits that an unregistered document affecting immovable property may be given in evidence i.e. where a document remains unregistered and title does not pass, the agreement between the parties which preceded the ineffective document shall remains and may be received in evidence to look into the terms thereof. This by itself would not confer any right since no such right has been conferred under the substantive law. Receiving in evidence does not mean conferment of substantive right. The rule of evidence cannot enlarge or alter the provisions of substantive law. It cannot confer rights, if there are none under the substantive law. In other words, such a document could be used only for the purpose permissible under proviso to Section 49 of Act, 1908 so as to establish part-performance under Section 53A of Act, 1882 but cannot be admitted in evidence to show nature of possession, if the possession was continuing from some date prior to the execution of unregistered deed. Here I find support from Apex Court decision in Kripal Kaur Vs. Bachan Singh, AIR 1958 SC 199."