P. VENKATARAMA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners are defendants in the suit O. S. No. 923 of 1991 (on the file of the 18th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court ). The suit was filed for eviction of the petitioners from the premises and recovery of mesne profits. The agreement dt. 19-12-1987 termed as a lease agreement which was filed by the plaintiff himself was sought to be marked by the petitioners in support of their case that the lease was renewable for a further period at their option. The plaintiff s counsel objected for marking the document on the ground that it is an unregistered document and therefore hit by Section 17 (b) of the registration Act. It wasalso pointed out that the document bears deficit stampduty and on this ground also, it is inadmissible in evidence.

( 2 ) THE learned Assistant Judge held that the defendants can mark the document for the limited purpose of proving the nature of possession. He relied inter alia on the decision of this Court reported in T. Venkatamma vs. M. Aswathanarayanappa wherein Ramaswamy, J (as he was then) observed"the non-registration thereof precludes adduction of evidence to prove the terms of the lease, since the lease deed is the source of title to the lessee". However, the learned Judge observed that "it is admissible in evidence to establish the collateral purpose of the character of the petitioner as a tenant and her continuance in possession as such. "

( 3 ) HAVING observed that the document could be marked only for a limited purpose of proving the nature of possession, the trial court directed the impounding of the document and collection of deficit stamp du ty and penalty before admitting the same into evidence for collateral purpose. It is this order that has been challenged in this C. R. P.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for petitioner submits that the trial court erred in law in confining the admissibility of the document only to the collateral purpose, that is to say, the nature and character of possession of the premises. The learned Counsel further submits that as the document falls within the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, the ban under Sec. l7 (b) is lifted and therefore the document can be relied upon in toto for any purpose. It is therefore his contention that the clause in the lease deed as regards the renewal of lease can be relied upon by the petitioners-defendants. It is pointed out that no purpose will be served if the petitioners are allowed to rely upon the unregistered document only for the purpose of proving the possession inasmuch as the petitioners possession as tenants is an admitted fact.

( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the decisions reported in Ram Reddy vs. Venkat Reddy, Manek Lal vs. Hormusji Jamshedji, and Durga prasad vs. Kanhiyalal.

( 6 ) I find no substance in the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The material portion of Section 49 of the Registration Act reads as follows :"no document required by Section 17or by any provisionsof the Transfer of Property Act, 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 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, or as evidence of part performance of the contract for the purposes of section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument. "

( 7 ) THE learned Counsel seeks to place reliance on that part of the proviso which says that an unregistered document can be received as evidence of part performance of a contract for the purp

Click Here to Read the rest of this document