Point of Law: Petition dismissed

ORDER :

The Civil Revision Petition arises out of the order dated 20.08.2019 passed in O.S No.373 of 2012 on the file of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru.

2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.

3. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff. He filed O.S.No.373 of 2012 before the trial Court for permanent injunction. The respondents who are defendants in the suit have filed Exchange Deed dated 14.02.1997 which is an unregistered document to receive in their evidence. At that time, the respondent/plaintiff raised an objection that it was an unregistered document therefore it cannot be marked. The trial Court has permitted to mark the Exchange deed dated 14.2.1997 holding that the said document was impounded and therefore it is admissible in evidence for collateral purposes only to the limited extent of the schedule property.

4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner placed reliance on the judgment in case of K.B. Saha & Sons Private Limited Vs Development Consultant Limited 2008 (5) SCC 717 (DB), wherein, it was held in para21, reads as under:

“21. From the principles laid down in the various decisions of this Court and the High Courts, as referred to hereinabove, it is evident that :

1. A document required to be registered is not admissible into evidence under Section 49 of the Registration Act.

2. Such unregistered document can however be used as an evidence of collateral purpose as provided in the Proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act.

3. A collateral transaction must be independent of, or divisible from, the transaction to effect which the law required registration.

4. Acollateral transaction must be a transaction not itself required to be effected by a registered document, that is, a transaction creating, etc. any right, title or interest in immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards.

5. If a document is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration, none of its terms can be admitted in evidence and that to use a document for the purpose of proving an important clause would not be using it as a collateral purpose.”

5. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Budha Jagadeeswara Rao v. Sri Ravi Enterprises rep. by its Proprietor Kedarisetty Gurumurthy 2017 (2) ALT 736 wherein it was held in para-26, as under:

“26. The concepts “main purpose” and “collateral purpose” play a pivotal role of admitting or not admitting in evidence an un-registered document compulsorily register able. The main purpose means the purpose mentioned in Section 17 i.e., for the purpose of creating, declaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing a right to immovable property, et., Such a document when compulsory registerable not admissible in evidence for the said main purposes. The effect of non-registration of such an instrument compulsory registerable is that the instrument doesn’t affect any immovable property comprised therein nor can it be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property. It does not follow, however, that the document is wholly irrelevant. Though the instrument is not admissible for the purpose of proving a concluded transaction transferring an interest, yet it can be received in evidence for collateral purposes. Collateral purpose is any purpose other than that of creating, declaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing a right to immovable property. The proviso to Section 49 permits the use of an un-registered document even compulsorily be registered, as evidence of a collateral transaction within the meaning of Section 49 proviso. Collateral transaction means a transaction other than the transaction affecting the immovable property but which is in some ways connected with it”.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the above judgment mainly contended that the document in dispute is an Exchange Deed which was unregistered. The Exchange Deed is a compulsorily registerable docume