Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
Ratheesh, S/o. Karunakaran – Appellant
Versus
V.S.Mary, D/o. Velayudhan – Respondents
RSA No. 838 of 2020
Decided on : 05-09-2023
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 100 - Transfer of Properties Act, 1882 - Section 106, 107 - Registration Act, 1908 - Section 17, (1) (d), 49 - Second appeal - Defaulted payment of rent - Suit for eviction - Appellant is aggrieved by decree and judgment – Whether issuance of a quit notice U/s.106 of Transfer of Property Act is necessary before initiating suit for eviction - Plaintiff is entitled to get recovery of possession of same, being landlord. (Para 25)
Finding of the Court :
Present suit is one filed after termination of tenancy by efflux of time and in such a case, notice mandated under Section 106 of TP Act is not necessary and, therefore, this challenge is found against defendant - Trial court as well as appellate court meticulously analysed evidence available and found that plaintiff is landlord of plaint schedule room, which was given on rent to defendant and defendant admitted his status as a tenant - Therefore, plaintiff is entitled to get recovery of possession of same, being landlord - In fact, no perversity or illegality in said finding could be gathered and as such, regular second appeal must fail.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
The statement you provided corresponds to a general legal principle found in the context of admissibility and limited use of registered documents as evidence. This principle is typically found in the paragraph discussing the admissibility of documents requiring registration and their limitations in proving ownership or transfer.
Based on standard legal texts, this principle is usually articulated in a paragraph that explains the purpose and scope of admissibility of such documents, often early in the section discussing evidence of transactions involving registered documents.
Therefore, the paragraph most likely to contain this statement is the one that discusses the admissibility of documents marked as evidence without objection and clarifies that their use is limited to the purpose for which they are admitted, not as conclusive proof of ownership or transfer.
Likely paragraph number: (!)
JUDGMENT :
This regular second appeal has been filed under section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC' for short) and the appellant is the defendant in O.S.No.115/2013 on the files of the Munsiff 's Court, Attingal. The appellant is aggrieved by the decree and judgment dated 30.06.2017 in OS No.115/2013 as well as decree and judgment in AS No.21/2017 dated 20.12.2019 on the files of the Sub Court, Attingal. The respondent herein is the plaintiff in the above Suit.
2. Heard the learned counsel for appellant as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
3. This appeal got admitted by raising the following substantive questions of law.
ii) Whether Ext.A1 agreement is one coming under proviso to Sect.49(c) of the Registration Act if so the same is a collateral transaction or not?
iii) Whether issuance of a quit notice U/s.106 of Transfer of Property Act is necessary before initiating suit for eviction?
4. I shall refer the parties in this regular second appeal as 'plaintiff' and 'defendant' for convenience.
5. The case put up by the plaintiff before the trial court was that the plaint schedule shop bearing No. 30 in ward No.IX of Pazhayakunnummel Grama Panchayat, originally owned and possessed by the plaintiff, was given on rent to the defendant with effect from 01.08.2009 for a period of three years, agreeing to pay rent at the rate of Rs.800/-(Rupees eight hundred only) per month. While occupying the building as tenant, the defendant defaulted payment of rent due for a period of 30 months. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed suit to get vacant possession of the plaint schedule shop room and also for getting decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from causing any harm, obstruction, waste or any mischief which would affect the right of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule shop room.
6. The defendant resisted the suit, admitting execution of the rent deed in favour of the plaintiff, contending that the defendant constructed a shop room in the year 1989 in the building and he had spent Rs. 50,000/-for the said purpose. Further, the defendant used to pay rent to one Sreekumaran Nair, who was the manager of the brother of the plaintiff. That apart, it has been contended that the statutory notice prescribed under Section 106 of the Transfer of Properties Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as 'the TP Act' for convenience), was not issued before filing the suit for eviction and as such, the suit is not maintainable.
7. The trial court framed necessary issues and recorded evidence. PWs 1 to 3 examined and Exhibits A1 to A8 marked on the side of the plaintiff. DWs 1 and 2 examined on the side of the defendant.
8. On appreciation of evidence, the learned Munsiff granted the decree as under: “In the result, the suit is decree as follows:
ii) The defendant shall pay the plaintiff arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.800 per month from December 2012 upto the date of surrender of vacant possession of the plaint schedule shop room.
iii) The defendant is restrained by a permanent prohibitory injunction from causing any waste in the plaint schedule shop room.”
9. Although the decree and judgment of the trial court dated 30.06.2017 was challenged before the Sub Court, Attingal, as per judgment and decree dated 20.12.2019 in AS No. 20/2017, the learned Sub Judge dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decree and judgment passed by the Munsiff court. As I have already pointed out at the time of admission, three substantive questions of law were raised, out of which questions 1 and 2 required to be addressed together and the third one to b
Section 49 of Registration Act reads as effect of non-registration of documents required to be registered.
Unregistered lease agreements cannot create tenancy rights exceeding one year under the Transfer of Property Act, leading to a month-to-month tenancy requiring valid notice for termination.
The main legal point established in the given judgment is that the relationship between landlord and tenant must be proved, the rate of rent must be established, and the absence of a registered subsi....
Point of Law : Order XLII Rule 2 provides power of Court to direct that the appeal be heard on the question formulated by it.
Unregistered documents cannot be used as evidence for transactions affecting immovable property unless for collateral purposes, as per the Registration Act.
The registration of a document executed posthumously is valid if the registering officer follows the prescribed procedures, and procedural irregularities do not invalidate the registration.
An unregistered lease deed cannot establish tenancy or enforce property rights, as it violates mandatory registration laws.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an unregistered Addendum Agreement cannot be given effect to and a suit for specific performance may be barred by the law of limitation.
Unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by Registration Act to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
