Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Shakti Kanta Pattanaik, AOR Mr. Santosh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Abhijit Sarkar, Adv. Mr. Rupak Ghosh, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, AOR Mr. Debmalya Ganguli, Adv. Mr. Anupam Dasadhikari, Adv. Ms. Tuli Ghosh, Adv.

The legal judgment emphasizes that parties cannot, through implied consent, confer admissibility upon an unregistered document. Specifically, in the context of lease agreements for immovable property, such documents are subject to strict legal requirements regarding registration. An unregistered lease, even if produced in evidence, cannot be deemed to have legal validity for establishing the transaction's effect on the property or the rights of the parties (!) (!) .

Furthermore, the law clearly stipulates that leases requiring registration—such as those for a period exceeding one year—must be registered to be legally enforceable and to confer rights or obligations regarding the property. The mere existence of an unregistered lease does not automatically render it inadmissible for collateral purposes, such as proving the nature of possession or the purpose of the lease, provided such collateral purpose is separate and independent from the main transaction (!) (!) .

In the case of disputes concerning the purpose of a lease—such as whether it was for manufacturing or other specific use—the court cannot rely solely on unregistered documents to determine the intent or the primary terms of the agreement. The primary dispute, especially when it involves the purpose of possession, is legally excluded from examination of unregistered deeds, as the law mandates registration for such substantive terms to be legally recognized (!) (!) .

Additionally, the law permits the use of unregistered documents for collateral purposes, such as establishing the purpose for which a property was leased or the nature of possession, but only when these are not the main terms of the lease and do not constitute the core dispute. When the primary issue is the purpose of the lease itself, the document's unregistered status precludes its use as evidence for that purpose (!) (!) .

In summary, parties cannot, through implied consent, overcome the statutory requirement of registration for leases that are legally mandated to be registered. The primary legal principle is that unregistered documents cannot be used to establish the main terms or effect of a lease, especially when such terms are central to the dispute. Such documents may only be considered for collateral purposes, provided they are not the main subject of litigation (!) (!) .