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 sourc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document