Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.21 seconds)M/S K.B.Saha And Sons Pvt. Ltd vs M/S Development Consultant Ltd on 12 May, 2008
10. The Supreme Court in K.B. Saha and Sons Private Limited supra has
held that a document required to be registered, if unregistered, is not
admissible in evidence under Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908;
though it can be used as an evidence for collateral transaction/purpose as
RFAs No.351/2013 & 406/2013 Page 12 of 15
provided in the proviso to Section 49 of the said Act but such collateral
transaction must be independent or divisible from the transaction which
required registration and must not itself be registrable. It was yet further
held that use of an unregistered document to prove an important clause
thereof would not be a use for collateral purpose.
Ahmedsaheb(D) By Lrs.& Ors vs Sayed Ismail on 19 July, 2012
In Ahmedsaheb supra relied upon by the counsel for the respondents,
the Supreme Court was concerned with a suit for recovery of arrears of rent;
though the plaintiff therein relied upon a rent deed but finding the same to be
unregistered, it was held that it cannot form the basis to support the claim of
the plaintiff for recovery of rent due; however, further finding other
uncontroverted evidence available on record to support the claim of the
plaintiff, the decree for recovery of rent was upheld. It was observed that
the relationship of landlord and tenant was not in controversy and the
defendant had himself pleaded the rate of rent. In this view of the matter, it
was held that the suit could not have been dismissed only on the ground of
rent deed being unregistered, as admission of a party in the proceedings
either in pleadings or oral is the best evidence and does not need any further
corroboration.
1