Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Though, it is contended on behalf of petitioner that in principle the trial Court is justified in holding that the instrument which was compulsorily registerable under Section 17 of the Registration Act having not been registered, cannot be admitted in evidence; however, while directing that it be used for collateral purpose, the trial Court exceeded in expanding the aspect of collateral purpose by including within its fold the aspect of diversion of joint property by metes and bounds.

Recently, in Yellapu Uma Maheshwari vs Buddha Jagadheeswararao : [Civil Appeal No.8441 of 2015] arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.12788/2014 decided on 8.10.2015 : 2015 AIR SCW 6184, it has been held :

"18. Then the next question that falls for consideration is whether these can be used for any collateral purpose. The larger Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Chinnappa Reddy Gari Muthyala Reddy vs. Chinnappa Reddy Gari Vankat Reddy , AIR 1969 A.P. (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 :: 4 ::

bounds. An unstamped instrument is not admissible in evidence even for collateral purpose, until the same is impounded. Hence, if the appellants/ defendants 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 Exhibits B-21 and B- 22 for collateral purpose subject to proof and relevance."

Vide impugned order, as the trial Court has declined to admit unregistered instrument of partition with a further observation that the same can be used for collateral purpose and extent to which it can be used for collateral purpose having been settled at rest by the decisions in Roshan Singh (supra) and Yellapu Uma Maheshwari (supra), the observation, an exception whereof is being taken by the petitioner, has to be read in the context of the law laid down by the Supreme Court.