Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.76 seconds)Bondar Singh & Ors vs Nihal Singh & Ors on 4 March, 2003
10. The fate of non-registration of the documents require to be registered under the aforesaid provision of law has been dealt with under Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. A document required to be registered but not registered shall not be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property as per Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. But, there is a proviso found thereunder which reads that such an unregistered document affecting immovable property can be received as evidence in a suit for specific performance filed invoking the provision under the Specific Relief Act, 1877. The proviso would further read that such an unregistered document affecting immovable property can also be received as evidence of any collateral transaction, which transaction is not required to be effected by registered instruments.
16. Reverting back to the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Bondar Singh Vs. Nihal Singh, 2003 (2) CTC 635 (SC) : AIR 2003 SC 1905, the Court finds that an unstamped and unregistered sale deed can very well be looked into, even if the same was not admissible in evidence, to establish the nature of possession of the party concerned over the suit property.
Vincent Lourdhenathan Dominique vs Josephine Syla Dominique on 4 December, 2007
17. No doubt, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of this Court reported in 2008 (1) CTC 308, Vincent Lourdhenathan Dominique and another v. Josephine Syla Dominique to contend that the unregistered partition deed cannot be admitted in evidence. A perusal of the said decision would show that a family arrangement which allotted the properties to the respective parties and did not record the earlier partition came up for consideration regarding its admissibility and the learned Single Judge of this Court has found that such family arrangement allotting the properties and not recording the earlier partition cannot be admitted in evidence as the same was an unregistered document. This Court found in the said decision that the agreement that was entered into therein on 21.05.1999 cannot be marked as document, since it required to be stamped and registered, since the reading of the entire agreement showed that there was no recital to the effect that it was for recording the earlier partition which had already taken place. Here, in this case, as already pointed out, the plaintiff seeks for the relief of declaration only based on the registered settlement deed and to prove the possession of his father, which being the collateral purpose, he wants to mark the unregistered partition deed. At any event, based on the respective pleadings of the parties as discussed supra and also based on the finding of the Court below that such admissibility of the document can be decided at the later point of time while deciding the suit, I am of the view that the present application filed once again by the defendant before the Court below is totally unwarranted and the same was rightly rejected by the Trial Court.
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 17 in The Registration Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
R.Munusamy vs G.Krishttappillai on 8 October, 2014
16. At this juncture, the decision rendered by this Court, reported in 2014-5-L.W.59, R.Munusamy v. G.Krishttappillai and others is useful for reference. Paragraphs 8 and 10 to 13 reads as follows:
S.Kaladevi vs V.R.Somasundaram & Ors on 12 April, 2010
In the decision reported in 2010 (3) MWN (Civil) 556 (SC) (S.Kaladevi Vs. V.R.Somasundaram), the Honourable Supreme Court has considered the question of admissibility of an unregistered sale deed in a suit for specific performance of a contract and observed in paragraph 11 as follows:
Durai @ Subrayan vs Anandan on 25 November, 2009
12. Further, this Court, in the decision reported in 2010-1-L.W.713 = 2010 (1) MWN (Civil) 534 (Durai @ Subrayan Vs. Anandan), while considering the very same issue in respect of a suit for permanent injunction, has followed the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Bondar Singh's case (cited supra) and observed in paragraphs 10 and 16 as follows:
1