Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. M. Vijaya Bhaskar, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Venkateswara Rao Anumolu, AOR Mr. K. Sita Rama Rao, Adv. Mr. Chandra Mohan Anisetty, Adv.

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.