Unregistered documents cannot be used to prove title or rights to property but may be admissible for collateral purposes if necessary conditions, including stamp duty, are met.

ORDER :

B S Bhanumathi, J.

This revision is filed against the docket order, dated 20.10.2022, passed in O.S.No.586 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati, by which the unregistered gift settlement deed, dated 31.03.1987, was held to be not admissible in evidence for collateral purpose.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. The suit was filed for declaration of the right of the plaintiffs in the pathway shown as plaint ‘B’ schedule property, i.e., CEFG in the plaint rough sketch and for directing the defendant to remove the unauthorized structure made in the said pathway. The case of the plaintiffs is that the plaint ‘A’ schedule property was gifted to D. Varadaraja Naidu, who is the husband of the 1^st plaintiff and father of plaintiffs 2 & 3 under the gift settlement deed, dated 31.03.1987, and that a right to pass through the ‘B’ schedule property of 5 feet width east to west and 52 ½ feet length north to south which is adjacent to plaint ‘A’ schedule property is created under the said document. But, the father of the defendant, by name, D.Devarajulu, got prepared a registered partition deed, dated 12.02.1990, by mentioning wrong measurements of plaint ‘B’ schedule property, and taking advantage of the same, the defendant was making illegal constructions over the plaint ‘B’ schedule property. The defendant resisted the suit admitting the existence of the joint lane but confining to the measurements as per partition deed, dated 12.02.1990, and disputing the gift settlement deed.

4. At the time of marking of the documents, an objection was raised by the trial Court to receive the gift settlement deed in evidence.

5. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that though the said deed is unregistered, it can be received in evidence for collateral purpose. Placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Bondar Singh and others Vs. Nihal Singh and others , [ AIR 2003 SC 1905 ] and the decision of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in C.Bhupal Reddy and others Vs. Rahamathulla Pasha (died) and others, [ 2018 (5) ALT 611 ] , the trial Court noted that these decisions are to the effect that the unregistered document can be received in evidence to prove possession of the party to the proceedings over the schedule property, but it cannot be received for the purpose of proving the title to the property and whereas, in the present case, the plaintiffs rely on this document to prove measurements of the lands in dispute and so, the said document cannot be received in evidence for collateral purpose.

6. Aggrieved by the order, this revision petition is preferred.

7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners referred to the decision of this Court in K. Ramamoorthi Vs. C.Surendranatha Reddy , [ 2012 (6) Andh LD 163 ] wherein after considering the numerous number of decisions on this aspect, the High Court held at paragraph Nos.29 & 30 which read as follows:

“29. On a compendious reference of the case law discussed above, the followings conclusions emerge:

i) A document, which is compulsorily registrable, but not registered, cannot be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power. The phrase "affecting the immovable property" needs to be understood in the light of the provisions of Section 17(b) of the REGISTRATION ACT , which would mean that any instrument which creates, declares, assigns, limits or extinguishes a right to immovable property, affects the immovable property.

ii) The restriction imposed under Section 49 of the REGISTRATION ACT is confined to the use of the document to affect the immovable property and to