Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.M. JOSEPH, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.
Korukonda Chalapathi Rao & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Korukonda Annapurna Sampath Kumar - Respondent
Civil Appeal No(s).6141 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP(C) No(s). 25745 of 2016)
Decided On : 01-10-2021
Registration Act, 1908 – Sections 17(1)(b) and 49 – Admissibility of unregistered and unstamped document (Family Arrangement) in evidence – Law is not that in every case where a party sets up plea that court may look into an unregistered documents to show nature of possession that court would agree to it – Cardinal principle would be whether by allowing case of party to consider an unregistered document it would result in breach of mandate of Section 49 of Registration Act – In present case, document does not purport to by itself create, declare, assign, extinguish or limit right in properties – Khararunama may not attract Section 49(1)(a) of Registration Act – Under Section 49(1)(a), a compulsorily registrable document, which is not registered, cannot produce any effect on rights in immovable property by way of creation, declaration, assignment, limiting or extinguishment – Section 49(1)(c) in effect, reinforces and safeguards against dilution of mandate of Section 49(1)(a) – It prevents an unregistered document being used ‘as’ evidence of transaction, which ‘affects’ immovable property – Transaction or past transactions cannot be proved by using Khararunama as evidence of transaction – Khararunama, being record of alleged transactions, it may not require to be stamped. [Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 13 Rule 3] (Paras 29, 33, 34 and 35)
Facts of the case:
By the impugned order the High Court has set aside the order passed by the Trial Court by which latter order, the Trial Court overruled the objections of the respondent to the marking of Exhibits-B12 and B13 on the score that they were documents which were unregistered and unstamped and matter was posted for the evidence of DW1 for marking the said document.High court found that the documents which were the unregistered family settlement “Khararunama” and receipt of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs) by the respondent, were not admissible in evidence.
Findings of Court:
If the Khararunama by itself, does not ‘affect’ immovable property, as already explained, being a record of the alleged past transaction, though relating to immovable property, there would be no breach of Section 49(1)(c), as it is not being used as evidence of a transaction effecting such property. However, being let in evidence, being different from being used as evidence of the transaction is pertinent.
Result : Appeal allowed.
In this judgment, the Supreme Court held that the appellate court's disallowance of the unregistered documents was correct. The Court clarified that the primary consideration is whether the consideration of such unregistered documents would breach the mandates of the Registration Act, specifically Section 49, which prohibits unregistered documents from affecting immovable property or being used as evidence of such transactions. The Court emphasized that documents which merely record past transactions or arrangements, without creating, declaring, assigning, or extinguishing rights in immovable properties, do not attract the registration requirement and can be considered for collateral purposes or to explain conduct and possession. In this case, the Court found that the documents in question did not ‘affect’ the immovable property directly and were records of past transactions, thus not requiring registration. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to disallow the unregistered documents from being used as evidence, aligning with the principle that such documents cannot be used to prove primary rights or transactions affecting immovable property unless they are registered.
JUDGMENT :
K.M. JOSEPH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. By the impugned order the High Court has set aside the order passed by the Trial Court by which latter order, the Trial Court overruled the objections of the respondent to the marking of Exhibits-B12 and B13 on the score that they were documents which were unregistered and unstamped and matter was posted for the evidence of DW1 for marking the said document. The High court found that the documents which were the unregistered family settlement “Khararunama” and receipt of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs) by the respondent, were not admissible in evidence.
3. The respondent is the younger brother of the appellants. The respondent instituted the present Suit (O.S. No.39 of 2001) seeking declaration of title over the plaint schedule property and for eviction of the appellants who are the defendants and consequential perpetual injunction is also sought against the appellants.
4. It is not in dispute that there was a partition between the appellants, the respondent and their other siblings. The partition list is marked as Exhbit-A8 in the suit. It is dated 17.11.1980. The plaint schedule properties are a part of F-Schedule in the Deed of partition allotted to the respondent. The case of the respondent is based on the said partition deed allotting F-schedule to him. It is, inter alia, his case in the suit as amended by order dated 19.12.2012 that he was in hospital as in patient for treatment of his liver ailment. The appellants allegedly obtained his signatures on papers and made up the alleged settlement dated 15.4.1986 and the alleged receipt dated 08.12.1983 (The documents which are in controversy). It is his further case that appellants are in occupation of the property with his permission. On refusal of the appellants to vacate and after exchange of notices, the suit is filed seeking the relief as noted. There are two plaint schedule items. Item No.1 is the terrace house, ground floor and upstairs. Item no.2 is half share nadava portion in the boundaries in terms of F-Schedule of the partition deed.
5. On the other hand, the case of the appellants is that while partition list dated 17.11.1980 was executed recording the fact of partition, which was already effected, there were subsequent developments. The respondent and his wife raised dispute before elders complaining that the portion given to them was not sufficient. At the intervention of the elders, it was settled and agreed between the appellants and the respondent that respondent should give away his portion to the second appellant and respondent should also give away his one-third portion in Nadava margam to the appellants and in consideration for the same the first appellant was to give Rs.25,000/- and the second appellant was to give Rs.75,000/- to the respondent. The said amounts were paid. On the advice of the elders the case of the appellants is that Khararunama dated 15.04.1986 was executed recording the facts. On the pleading of respondent and his wife to permit them to stay on, the respondent was permitted to occupy the property. It is the further case of the appellants that in December, 1993, respondent and his wife informed the appellants that they would vacate the portion in the second appellant’s house and leave the same but defendants should pay some more money as they intended to vacate the property. The elders settled the matter and it is alleged that Second appellant had to pay Rs.2,00,000/-. Out of affection towards the respondent and to purchase peace, the second appellant agreed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs). Accordingly, Rs.2,00,000/- was paid on 08.12.1993 in the presence of elders and the receipt dated 08.12.1993 was issued by the respondent to the second appellant and on the same day, respondent is alleged to have vacated and left the portion in his occupation in the house of the second appellant and shifted to a rented portion.
6. After completion of the evidence on behalf of the respondent, appel
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
