Back
S.B.SINHA, MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA
Vishwanath Bapurao Sabale – Appellant
Versus
Shalinibai Nagappa Sabale – Respondent
Section 49 of the Registration Act emphasizes that a registered document is admissible as evidence of the transaction it records. However, the registration of a document does not automatically affect the validity or invalidity of the transaction itself. Instead, registration serves primarily as a means of establishing the existence and details of the transaction, making the document suitable for use in legal proceedings. The primary purpose of this section is to ensure that registered documents are recognized as valid evidence, while the substantive validity of the transaction depends on other legal requirements and principles (!) .
This provision highlights the importance of registration in providing legal proof and facilitating transparency in transactions, especially in matters related to property and other significant dealings. Nonetheless, it clarifies that registration alone does not determine the legal rights or obligations of the parties involved; it merely records the transaction for evidentiary purposes (!) .
In essence, Section 49 underscores the role of registration as a crucial evidentiary tool, without impacting the substantive legality of the recorded transaction.
JUDGMENT
S.B. Sinha, J.—
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals are directed against a judgment and order dated 22-01-2008 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Second Appeal No. 105 of 2007 and Civil Application No. 280 of 2007 with Second Appeal No. 107 of 2007 and Civil Application No. 284 of 2007.
3. Bapurao and Shivappa were step brothers. Laxmibai was wife of Bapurao. Shivappa married one Parvatibai.
Bapurao died in the year 1958. Laxmibai died on 12-12-1978. Appellant Vishwanath is the adopted son of Laxmibai having been adopted on 5-06-1967. Nagubai is the daughter of Shivappa and Parvatibai. Shivappa died in the year 1977. Respondent Nagappa, son of Nagubai is said to have been adopted by Shivappa on 24-01-1969. The parties are governed by Bombay School of Hindu Law. Nagappa was aged about 19 years when he was allegedly adopted.
4. Bapurao and Shivappa were living separately. They had separate businesses.
They however had some joint family properties which were acquired prior to 1934. Bapurao had also self acquired properties. Allegedly Bapurao, having suffered substantial loss in his business had incurred loan in the year 1955. He owed
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
