IMPORTANT POINT
Unregistered lease agreements can be admissible for collateral purposes if objections to their admissibility are not raised at the time of tendering.

JUDGMENT :

1. The Court GA 17 of 2024 is filed on behalf of the Defendant for recording objections in connection with the deposition of the Plaintiff’s witness in respect of question no. 51 to 59 as recorded in the minutes dated 13.06.2023.

2. In course of examination of the Plaintiff’s witness, four agreements were adduced in evidence. The four agreements bear dates of 08.12.2008, 06.10.2008, 17.10.2009 and 16.05.2009 respectively. These agreements were marked as G, GA, GB and GC and the signatures were also marked accordingly. The said agreements are lease agreements of immovable properties exceeding one year of duration. All these agreements are unregistered agreements. All along, the Defendant was under impression that objection, as to admissibility of the said four agreements and the mode adopted for proving the said four agreements, are irregular and cannot be allowed. The said will also be evident from the fact that the Learned Advocate for the Defendant did not put any question to the witness of the Plaintiff during cross-examination. It is also contended that the Defendant was not allowed inspection of the said agreements prior to tendering the agreements for evidence.

3. In the month of January 2024, it transpired to the Defendant during conference that there was an inadvertent error in not recording objection while tendering the said four agreements. These agreements were exhibited and marked. These four agreements are unregistered lease deed and are third party agreements. The witness was neither a party nor an attesting witness. As such mode adopted for proving the agreements are irregular and cannot be allowed. Therefore, the instant application is filed for recording objections of the Defendant inn exhibiting and marking the said agreements.

4. Affidavit-in-Opposition was filed on behalf of the Plaintiff. It is contended that the Defendant did not contemporaneously raise any objection with respect to the manner in which the documents in question have been proved and marked as exhibits. A right has accrued in favour of the Plaintiff. In order to maintain fair play, the present application should not be allowed. Moreover, the documents namely the agreements have been relied upon for collateral purpose; that is why the same was never objected to and admitted in evidence. The present application is an afterthought, filed after lapse of seven months from the date of deposition of the Plaintiff’s witness. These documents were filed by way of supplementary Judges’ brief of documents and handed over to the Defendant, as recorded in the Order dated 26.04.2023. The Plaintiff also offered inspection of documents in terms of the letter dated 28.04.2023 which was refused. The Defendant refrained from taking any inspection of the document although so offered. Contention raised by the Defendant that no inspection of the documents was offered, is refuted by the Plaintiff. In nutshell, according to the Plaintiff, the instant application is liable to be rejected.

5. Mr. Ghosh, the Learned Senior Counsel argued first that the agreements are compulsorily registerable documents being lease deed for a span of more than one year. The agreements are inadmissible as evidence. An objection to its admissibility is not excluded and can be raised at any later stage of the proceeding. Mr. Ghosh relied on the observations of the Supreme Court of India in R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder Vs. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple & Anr. [(2003) 8 SCC 752]. Mr. Ghosh also referred to a decision of the Supreme Court of India namely K.B. Saha & Sons. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Development Consultant Ltd. [(2008) 8 SCC 564] to submit that an unregistered lease deed, which is a compulsorily registerable document under Section 49 of the Registration Act is not admissible as evidence if the same is not registered. Referring to the observations made therein, he further submitted that if a document is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration, none of its terms can be