9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 1184X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the trial court. Recently in the case of K.B. Saha and Sons Private Limited v. Development Consultant Limited [ 2008 (5) TMI 708 - SUPREME COURT] , This Court culled out the following principles:- 1. A document required to be registered, if unregistered is not admissible into evidence u/s 49 of the Registration Act. 2. Such unregistered document can however be used as an evidence of collateral purpose as provided in the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act. 3. A collateral transaction must be independent of, or divisible from, the transaction to effect which the law required registration. 4. A collateral transaction must be a transaction not itself required to be effected by a registered document, that is, a transaction creating, etc. any right, title or interest in immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards. 5. If a document is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration, none of its terms can be admitted in evidence and that to use a document for the purpose of proving an important clause would not be using it as a collateral purpose. To the aforesaid principles, one more principle may be added, namely, that a document ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iso appended to Section 49 of 1908 Act. The result is that appeal is allowed, The trial court shall mark the unregistered sale deed dated 27.2.2006 tendered by the plaintiff in her evidence and proceed with the suit accordingly. - R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND LODHA, RAJENDRA MAL, JJ. JUDGMENT R.M. LODHA,J. Leave granted. 2. The short question is one of admissibility of an unregistered sale deed in a suit for specific performance of the contract. 3. The appellant and the respondents are plaintiff and defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively in the suit presented in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Gobichettipalayam. The plaintiff in the suit claimed for the reliefs of directing the defendants to execute a fresh sale deed with regard to the suit property in pursuance of an agreement for sale dated 27.02.2006 on or before the date that may be fixed by the court and failing which execution of the sale deed by the court. She also prayed for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. 4. According to the plaintiff, 1st defendant for himself, as the guardian father of 3rd defen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the 1st defendant whether the consideration has been received and sale deed could be registered, he and the 2nd defendant learnt that plaintiff had fraudulently obtained the signatures on sale deed by falsely stating that it was only an agreement for sale and hence they went away refusing to agree for the registration of the said document. 6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the issues were struck. It appears that on 05.12.2007 at the time of examination of PW. 1, the unregistered sale deed dated 27.02.2006 was tendered for being marked. The counsel for the defendants objected to the said document being admitted in evidence being an unregistered sale deed. The trial court by its order dated 11.12.2007 sustained the objection and refused to admit the sale deed in evidence. 7. The plaintiff unsuccessfully challenged the order of the trial court dated 11.12.2007 by filing revision petition before the High Court and hence this appeal by special leave. 8. After having heard Mr. K. V. Vishwanathan, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. T.S.R. Venkatramana, learned counsel for the respondents, we are of the opinion that having regard to the proviso to Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 17 or by any provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), to be registered shall - (a) affect any immovable property comprised therein, or (b) confer any power to adopt, or (c) be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power, unless it has been registered: Provided that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by this Act or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 (3 of 1877), or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument. 11. The main provision in Section 49 provides that any document which is required to be registered, if not registered, shall not affect any immovable property comprised therein nor such document shall be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property. Proviso, however, would show that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by 1908 Act or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to be registered may be received as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ument is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration, none of its terms can be admitted in evidence and that to use a document for the purpose of proving an important clause would not be using it as a collateral purpose. To the aforesaid principles, one more principle may be added, namely, that a document required to be registered, if unregistered, can be admitted in evidence as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance. 13. In Kalavakurti Venkata Subbaiah v. Bala Gurappagari Guruvi Reddy (1999) 7 SCC 114, the question presented before this Court was whether a decree to enforce the registration of sale deed could be granted. That was a case where respondent therein filed a suit for specific performance seeking a direction to register the sale deed. The contention of the appellant, however, was that decree for specific performance based on unregistered sale deed could not be granted. This Court noticed the provisions contained in Part XII of 1908 Act, particularly Section 77, and difference of opinion between the various High Courts on the aspect and observed:- The difference of opinion amongst the various High Courts on this aspect of the matter is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould arise. The first appellate court rightly took the view that under Section 49 of the Act the sale deed could be received in evidence to prove the agreement between the parties though it may not itself constitute a contract to transfer the property..... . 15. The issue before us is only with regard to the admissibility of unregistered sale deed dated 27.2.2006 in evidence and, therefore, it is neither appropriate nor necessary for us to consider the contention raised by learned counsel for the respondents about the maintainability of suit as framed by the plaintiff or the circumstances in which the sale deed was executed. If any issue in that regard has been struck by the trial court, obviously, such issue would be decided in accordance with law. Suffice, however, to say that looking to the nature of the suit, which happens to be a suit for specific performance, the trial court was not justified in refusing to admit the unregistered sale deed dated 27.2.2006 tendered by the plaintiff in evidence. 16. The argument of learned counsel for the respondents with regard to Section 3(b) of 1963 Act is noted to be rejected. We fail to understand how the said provision helps the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
