The main legal point established in the judgment is that while an unregistered document may be inadmissible for the main purpose, it could still be used for collateral purpose under Section 49 of the Registration Act.

ORDER :

This revision, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is preferred against the order, dated 03.03.2020, allowing I.A.No.14 of 2020 in O.S.No.349 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, filed under Order XIII Rules 3 & 6 and Section 151 CPC praying to de-exhibit exhibit A14, unregistered relinquishment deed, dated 18.05.1971.

2. Heard Sri Srinivas Basava, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/respondent/plaintiff and Sri G.V.S.Mehar Kumar, learned counsel for respondents/petitioners/defendants 6 & 7.

3. The facts stated in the affidavit, in brief, are that the plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants for declaration, permanent injunction and for cancellation of the registered documents. The 1st defendant filed her written statement which was adopted by defendants 2 to 5. The 8th defendant is set ex parte. The suit was posted to 11.12.2019 for cross-examination of plaintiff as PW1. After filing of chief affidavit of PW1, while affirming the said affidavit as evidence, the trial Court marked exhibits A1 to A48 on 16.10.2019. While marking the said documents, the trial Court inadvertently marked the unregistered relinquishment deed, dated 18.05.1971, said to have been executed by Ponnuri Punnaiah in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property as exhibit A14. The defendants took an objection in marking the relinquishment deed, Exhibit A14, as the same is required to be registered. As the plaintiff claims the suit schedule property basing on the said relinquishment deed, dated 18.05.1971, the said document is a vital document. At the time of marking the said document, the counsel for the defendants abstained from Court due to boycott. There is no willful default or gross negligence on the part of the defendants in not raising objection at the earliest point of time. Hence, exhibit A14, unregistered relinquishment deed, dated 18.05.1971, is required to be de-exhibited, as the same is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration.

4. The plaintiff filed counter opposing the petition and contending that the trial Court marked exhibit A14, unregistered relinquishment deed, only after considering its contents. The denial of a document alone does not make it inadmissible. Exhibit A14 is not a relinquishment deed and the defendants never raised the issue of inadmissibility of the document either in their written statement or in the interlocutory application, viz., I.A.No.502 of 2019, which was filed for sending the relinquishment deed to the District Registrar, Narasaraopet, for impounding the said document.

It is not open for the defendants to plead that they could not raise objection at the earliest point of time due to boycott by the advocates. The document was marked on 16.10.2019. The suit was posted to 13.11.2019 for cross-examination of PW1. As the counsel for the defendants was absent on that day, the suit was posted to 04.12.2019 and as the counsel was again absent on 04.12.2019 also, the matter stood posted to 11.12.2019. On 11.12.2019, the defendants 6 & 7 came up with this application to avoid cross-examination. There are no bona fides on the part of the defendants. The petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. On contest, the trial Court allowed the petition holding that exhibit A14, relinquishment deed, dated 18.05.1971, is a compulsorily registerable document under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act and it cannot be received in evidence and that therefore, the relinquishment deed, which is marked as exhibit A14 is rejected being inadmissible.

6. The aggrieved plaintiff preferred this revision mainly contending that none of the defendants raised any objection on the admissibility of the document in question; that once the document is impounded and stamp duty is collected, de-exhibiting on the ground of non-registration of the document is unwarranted; that the order impugned is bereft of reasons; that the trial Court failed to appr