IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the admissibility of documents for collateral purposes under the proviso to Sec. 49 of the Registration Act, and the importance of timely objections to the admissibility of evidence.

JUDGMENT

1. This revision is preferred by the defendants 2 and 3 challenging the order, dtd. 13/12/2021, passed in O.S.No.18 of 2013 on the file of the Court of VII Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam.

2. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the respondents 1 & 2/plaintiffs. Respondent No.3 died and respondent No.4 is shown as not a necessary party to this revision as no relief is claimed against him.

3. The facts of the case are as follows: The schedule property which was originally purchased in the name of Muthuswamy, father of the 1st defendant, as well as, father-in-law of the 1st plaintiff, to an extent of 2000 square yards by virtue of partition in the year 1968, was divided allotting 1000 square yards to the husband of 1st plaintiff and 500 square yards each to 1st defendant and her sister, Adi Lakshmi Bhaskaran, who is the mother of the 2nd defendant. On mutual understanding, the husband of the 1st plaintiff constructed a duplex house in an extent of 400 square yards, but as he is living away from the schedule property by virtue of his job, he permitted his parents and his sister, i.e., defendant No.1 to be in possession of the property and that out of mutual understanding over 1000 square yards belonging to 1st defendant and Adilakshmi Bhaskaran clubbing 600 square yards, i.e., over 1600 square yards, a multi-storied building was constructed in which the husband of 1st plaintiff was allotted 3 flats. But it is the case of the defendants that out of 1000 square yards allotted to the husband of 1st plaintiff, a mutual understanding was arrived at between the parties to the effect that 400 square yards being the southern part of 1000 square yards was given to 1st defendant to enable her to build a house and in view of the same, the husband of the plaintiff was given 600 square yards with a building thereon at Chennai. Thus, 400 square yards was given to the 1st defendant and it is the 1st defendant who had submitted plan, obtained permission to construct a house over the schedule property and as such, she claims the property to be of her own.

4. While so, during trial when DW1 entered into witness box and intended to mark the referred deed of assignment, dtd. 1/10/1973, under which the 1st defendant claims to have been allotted 400 square yards over which she constructed a house and similarly to prove that 1st defendant has been in possession of the property in view of the mutual understanding, the defendant intended to mark the said lease deed as well.

5. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs raised objection regarding admissibility of the documents titled 'deed of assignment' and 'lease deed' when they were produced and sought to be marked through DW1 on the ground that both the documents are compulsorily registerable documents and cannot be received in evidence without registration.

6. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court permitted the document styled as 'lease deed' to be marked subject to objection raised by the plaintiff and the second document titled as 'deed of assignment' is rejected.

7. Hence, this revision is preferred by defendants 2 and 3.

8. Though necessary stamp duty has been collected on the deed of assignment, since the trial Court refused to mark it in evidence for want of registration, the revision petitioner vehemently contended that the trial Court erroneously did not follow the decision of the Supreme Court in Bipin Shantilal Panchal vs. State of Gujarat and Ors.,AIR 2001 SC 1158. In this regard, it is further contended that in view of the proviso to Sec. 49 of the Registration Act which permits receipt of a document in evidence for proof of collateral transaction which does not require registration, the trial Court ought to have marked the document subject to any objection that may be decided later on, instead of shutting the doors of the party by eliminating the evidence from consideration and not giving an opportunity to Court in trial to examine whether such docume