Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(AP) 507

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
NYAPATHY VIJAY, J.
Tummala Prabhakar Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Tummala Penchala Reddy and others – Respondent
CRP No.467 of 2023
Decided on : 31-01-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sivaprasad Reddy Venati
For the Respondent: Dr. G.V. Ravi

Unregistered documents are inadmissible as evidence unless related to a specified collateral transaction not requiring registration.

Headnote:(A) Registration Act - Sections 17 and 49 - Unregistered documents - Admissibility in evidence - Unregistered settlement deed was not admissible as evidence due to lack of registration - Court emphasized that an unregistered document can only be received as evidence of collateral transactions not required to be effected by registered instrument. (Paras 11 and 14)

(B) Legal principle - Collateral transaction - To utilize an unregistered document for collateral purposes, an independent & divisible transaction must be established; otherwise, evidence is inadmissible. (Paras 12 and 13)

Facts of the case:
The suit for partition was initiated by children of a deceased individual, claiming shares in property. Defendant argued that the property was no longer ancestral due to an unregistered deed. Petitioner's plea to impound the deed was rejected by the Trial Court.

Findings of Court:
Court upheld the Trial Court’s decision, stating the unregistered deed could not be received in evidence as there was no specified collateral transaction.

Issues: The main issues were whether the unregistered settlement deed could be admitted and the nature of the collateral transaction.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that unregistered documents are inadmissible unless related to a specified collateral transaction and reaffirmed that the opposing party did not establish such a transaction.

Result: Civil revision petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. nature of the civil revision petition and factual background. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments about property ownership and settlement deed. (Para 3 , 4)
3. legal standards on admissibility of unregistered documents. (Para 5 , 6 , 12)
4. arguments presented regarding admissibility of the unregistered document. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
5. ratio decidendi concerning collateral transactions. (Para 11 , 13 , 14)
6. dismissal of the civil revision petition. (Para 15)

JUDGMENT :

1. This civil revision petition is filed questioning the docket order dated 10.11.2022 in OS No.65 of 2012 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Kovur, SPSR Nellore District.

2. Petitioner is defendant No.1. The suit OS No.65 of 2012 was filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 seeking for partition of suit schedule properties into three shares and consequentially allot shares to the respondent Nos.1 to 3/plaintiffs. The plaintiffs and defendant No.1 are children of one Tummala Penchala Reddy. The said Penchala Reddy and his wife died leaving intestate the plaint schedule property. As the plaintiffs are having a share in the schedule property, they got issued a notice dated 16.11.2011 seeking for partition and as there was no positive reply, the suit was filed.

3. In the written statement, the petitioner had contended that the schedule property belonged to their mother, i.e., Tummala Penchalamma. It was pleaded that at the time of marriage of defendant No.1 with T. Ratnamma, the said Penchalamma borrowed an amount of Rs.10,000/- from the parents of Ratnamma. After marriage, the wife of the petitioner demanded repayment of the said money and since Penchalamma was unable to repay the debt, she had executed an unregistered and unstamped settlement deed dated 12.12.1996 and delivered possession of the property in her favour.

4. Therefore, it was contended that the schedule property is no longer an ancestral property. It was further contended that the wife of the petitioner/defendant No.1 had executed a registered settlement deed in favour of her daughter on 02.02.2008 and the daughter of the petitioner i.e., respondent No.5 herein is in possession of the schedule property.

5. In the course of trial, the petitioner filed IA No.54 of 2020 seeking to impound the unregistered and unstamped settlement deed dated 12.12.1996. The said IA was allowed on 17.02.2020. Thereupon, the document was sent back to the Court after levying deficit stamp duty of Rs.23,250/-.

6. At the time of marking, the respondents/plaintiffs contended that the document requires registration and cannot be marked in evidence even for collateral purpose.

7. The Trial Court, vide docket order impugned dated 10.11.2022 upheld the objection and rejected the document from being marked in evidence. Hence, the present revision petition is filed.

8. Heard Sri Siva Prasad Reddy Venati, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri G.V. Ravi, learned Counsel for the respondents.

9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the stamp duty having collected on the settlement deed dated 12.12.1996, the said document can be marked in evidence for collateral purpose. He placed reliance on Section 49 of the REGISTRATION ACT .

10. The Counsel for the respondents contended that even though a document is not registered, the same can be marked for collateral purpose. But in this case, it was contended that the collateral purpose was not specified by the petitioner.

11. Having heard the respective Counsel, this Court opines as follows :

Section 17 of the REGISTRATION ACT contemplates the documents that are compulsorily registrable. The unregistered documents are prohibited from being received in evidence in view of Section 49 (c) of the REGISTRATION ACT . The proviso thereto provides an exception to a suit for specific performance or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument. Section 49 is extracted below :