Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4.7. He further placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Z. Engineers Construction Private Limited 2019 SCC OnLine Gujarat 2113 2019 SCC OnLine AP 268 Dr.GRR,J CRP Nos.2723&2876 of 2022 and another v. Bipin Bihari Bahera and others 8 wherein an objection was taken with regard to impounding of power of attorney, it was held that; "Such objection was required to be decided at the threshold but incase where evidence is required to determine the nature of document, it was reasonable to defer that issue at the time of final decision in the suit and remitted the matter to the trial court to decide the petition on admissibility of the document along with the main suit."

14. Further, when an objection was raised on admissibility of document in evidence, it is mandatory for the Court to consider such objection and assign reasons in support of the decision."

15. The High Court for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in Budha Jagadeeshwara Rao v. Sri Ravi Enterprises (14 supra) had discussed the concepts 'main purpose' and 'collateral purpose' as follows:

"26. The concepts main purpose and collateral purpose play a pivotal role for admitting or not admitting in evidence an un-registered document compulsorily registerable. The main purpose means the purpose mentioned in Section-17 i.e. for the purpose of creating, declaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing a right to immoveable property, etc. Such a document when compulsory Dr.GRR,J CRP Nos.2723&2876 of 2022 registerable not admissible in evidence for the said main purposes. The effect of non-registration of such an instrument compulsory registerable is that the instrument doesn't affect any immoveable property comprised therein nor can it be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property. It does not follow, however, that the document is wholly irrelevant. Though the instrument is not admissible for the purpose of proving a concluded transaction transferring an interest, yet it can be received in evidence for collateral purposes. Collateral purpose is any purpose other than that of creating, declaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing a right to immoveable property. The proviso to Section-49 permits the use of an un- registered document even compulsorily be registered, as evidence of a collateral transaction within the meaning of Section-49 proviso. Collateral transaction means a transaction other than the transaction affecting the immoveable property but which is in some ways connected with it. The expression collateral transaction is not used in the sense of an ancillary transaction to a principal transaction or subsidiary transaction to a main transaction. The root meaning of the word collateral is running together or running on parallel lines. The transaction as recorded would be a particular or specific transaction. But it would be possible to read in that transaction what may be called the purpose of the transaction and what may be called a collateral purpose. The fulfillment of that collateral purpose would bring into existence a collateral transaction, which may be said to be a part and parcel of the transaction but nonetheless, a transaction which runs together with or on parallel lines with the same. Thus, a collateral purpose is a purpose which must be unrelated to the terms and conditions of the main purpose of the transaction covered by the document. It must be independent of, or divisible from the transaction which requires registration, and it must be a transaction not by itself required to be effected by a registered document. The term collateral purpose is a very vague one and therefore it is the courts that must decide in each case depending upon facts and circumstances and from contents, as to whether the parties who seek a compulsory but unregistered Dr.GRR,J CRP Nos.2723&2876 of 2022 document when not admissible to main purpose, for a purpose which is really a collateral purpose to mean other than for any of the main purposes mentioned as held in K.Panchapagesu Aiyyar Vs. K.Kalyanasundaram Aiyyar . It is because a party cannot use such un-registered document by the simple device of calling it as collateral purpose. In legal proceedings what one cannot directly bring about, cannot indirectly bring about is held in A.C.Lakshmipathy and Others Vs. A.M. Chakrapahi Reddiar . In-AIR-1932-PC-55 and Kashinath Bhaskar Datar Vs. Bhasker Viveshwar it was clearly held that to decide whether registration required or not the words creating, declaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing a right to immoveable property are ejusdem-generis and imply a definite change of legal rights in the property that is main purpose. Where the document doesnt reflect any definite change of legal rights in the property and merely recites what the existing rights therein are i.e. mere acknowledgment of a fact took place, likewise merely recites with whom the possession of the property lies, it cannot be construed from the contents as of creating, declaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing any rights in immovable property. See also Uma Devi and Others Vs. Shaik Hussaini and Others , Harendra H. Mehta and Others Vs. Mukesh H.Mehta & Ramlaxmi Ranchlodal Vs. Bank of Baroda, Hyderabad . In-1969(1) SCWR it was held that evidence as to character of possession is being considered as collateral purpose. See also Hari Waman Rao and Others Vs. Pappula Narsimlu . In-AIR-1959-SC-199-it was held that character of possession prior to date of document cannot be regarded as collateral purpose. The test would be whether the party relying on the registered document seeks to rely on its terms for affecting such property or conferring such power. If the genuineness of a document is questioned, the execution of the document itself will have to be proved and that cannot be a collateral purpose. For instance, an unregistered lease deed cannot be relied upon to enforce the terms of the agreement such as the period of tenancy, quantum of rent, mutual obligations under the agreement, where the lessee has the right to sub-lease or to carry out the Dr.GRR,J CRP Nos.2723&2876 of 2022 repairs to the building etc., In other words, what is prohibited is the attempt to enforce the terms of the unregistered document, but not to establish the purpose for which the property was given possession i.e., nature of possession which is a collateral purpose. See Sardar Amar Singh and Others Vs. Smt Surinder Kaur ; AIR-1977-AP-371; 1975(2) APLJ-298; Gangayya and Others Vs. S. Madan Chand Samdaria ; Raghunath Singh and Others Vs. Kishanla (deceased LR); 1975(2) AnWR-226=(1)APLJ-372; S.K.Agarwal Vs. M. Venkateswarlu - all the above cases are relating to unregistered lease deed or lease agreements. In Ambati Durgamma vs. Pericherla Ragapathiraju it was held that an unregistered lease deed, which is compulsorily registerable can be looked into for the purpose of proving nature of possession of lessee over leasehold land. In Giri Yadav vs. L.Ramesh Goud it was held that a lease deed in respect of immovable property for a period exceeding one year or reserving yearly rent requires registration. However, unregistered lease is admissible in evidence for collateral purpose of proving possession of a party."

17. The Hon'ble Apex Court in R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulinigu Viswesaraswami and V.P. temple and another (16 Supra), while considering the argument that the objection to the admissibility of the document can be raised only when it is tendered but not subsequently, held that:

"19. Order 13 Rule 4 of the CPC provides for every document admitted in evidence in the suit being endorsed by or on behalf of the Court, which endorsement signed or initialed by the Judge amounts to admission of the document in evidence. An objection to the admissibility of the document should be raised before such endorsement is made and the Court is obliged to form its opinion on the question of admissibility and express the same on which opinion would depend the document being endorsed as admitted or not admitted in evidence. In the latter case, the document may be returned by the Court to the person from whose custody it was produced.

Dr.GRR,J CRP Nos.2723&2876 of 2022

20. The learned counsel for the defendant- respondent has relied on The Roman Catholic Mission Vs. The State of Madras & Anr. AIR 1966 SC 1457 in support of his submission that a document not admissible in evidence, though brought on record, has to be excluded from consideration. We do not have any dispute with the proposition of law so laid down in the abovesaid case. However, the present one is a case which calls for the correct position of law being made precise. Ordinarily an objection to the admissibility of evidence should be taken when it is tendered and not subsequently. The objections as to admissibility of documents in evidence may be classified into two classes:- (i) an objection that the document which is sought to be proved is itself inadmissible in evidence; and (ii) where the objection does not dispute the admissibility of the document in evidence but is directed towards the mode of proof alleging the same to be irregular or insufficient. In the first case, merely because a document has been marked as 'an exhibit', an objection as to its admissibility is not excluded and is available to be raised even at a later stage or even in appeal or revision. In the latter case, the objection should be taken before the evidence is tendered and once the document has been admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit, the objection that it should not have been admitted in evidence or that the mode adopted for proving the document is irregular cannot be allowed to be raised at any stage subsequent to the marking of the document as an exhibit. The later proposition is a rule of fair play. The crucial test is whether an objection, if taken at the appropriate point of time, would have enabled the party tendering the evidence to cure the defect and resort to such mode of proof as would be regular. The omission to object becomes fatal because by his failure the party entitled to object allows the party tendering the evidence to act on an assumption that the opposite party is not serious about the mode of proof. On the other hand, a prompt objection does not prejudice the party tendering the evidence, for two reasons: firstly, it enables the Court to apply its mind and pronounce its decision on the question of admissibility then Dr.GRR,J CRP Nos.2723&2876 of 2022 and there; and secondly, in the event of finding of the Court on the mode of proof sought to be adopted going against the party tendering the evidence, the opportunity of seeking indulgence of the Court for permitting a regular mode or method of proof and thereby removing the objection raised by the opposite party, is available to the party leading the evidence. Such practice and procedure is fair to both the parties. Out of the two types of objections, referred to hereinabove, in the later case, failure to raise a prompt and timely objection amounts to waiver of the necessity for insisting on formal proof of a document, the document itself which is sought to be proved being admissible in evidence. In the first case, acquiescence would be no bar to raising the objection in superior Court."