SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(Raj) 746

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
ARUN BHANSALI, J.
Banshi Lal - Petitioner
Versus
Gauri Lal and Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 516 of 2015
Decided on : 20-01-2015.

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:T.R.S. Sodha, Advocate.

Headnote:Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Section 59 Registration Act, 1908 Section 49 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Section 65 Application filed by the Petitioner in the trial court to furnish secondary evidence as the unregistered Mortgage Deed was above Rs 100 and needed compulsory registration – Rejected – Trial court not wrong in rejecting the application – Original Deed not admissible – Petition disallowed.

JUDGMENT :

Arun Bhansali, J.

This writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against order dated 28.10.2014 passed by the trial court, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 65 of the Evidence Act for permission to lead secondary evidence has been rejected.

2. The application was filed seeking permission to lead secondary evidence qua a unregistered mortgage deed. The trial court came to the conclusion that in view of provisions of Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 ('Act of 1908') the original mortgage deed itself was inadmissible in evidence and, therefore, the application seeking permission to lead secondary evidence of such inadmissible document was not maintainable and, consequently, dismissed the same.

3. Under Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 where the principal money secured is one hundred rupees or upwards, a mortgage can be effected only by a registered instrument signed by the mortgagor and attested by at least two witnesses.

4. Admittedly, the document in question is of a value more than Rs. 100/- and the same is unregistered.

5. In view of provisions of Section 49 of the Act of 1908 the same is inadmissible and for a original document, which is inadmissible, secondary evidence cannot be permitted to be led.

6. Consequently, the order passed by the trial court cannot be faulted and the writ petition does not have any substance and the same is, therefore, dismissed. The stay petition is also dismissed. No order as to costs.

Petition Dismissed.


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top