Back
2001 Supreme(Raj) 419
Rajasthan High Court
Honble BHAGWATI PRASAD, J.
Ganpat Mal Dhariwal - Appellant
Versus
Sukhraj & Anr. - Respondents
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 101 of 1983
Decided On : April 18, 2001
S.M. Bhansali, for Appellant M.L. Kala, for Respondents
Headnote:Registration Act, Sec. 49; Evidence Act, Sec. 91 – Suit for partition of ancestral house – Deed of relinquishment neither properly stamped nor registered – Trial Court held that it is inadmissible in evidence but may be looked into for determining the purpose of the possession i.e. for collateral purpose – Dismissed suit – Held – Unregistered documents cannot be admitted in evidence even for collateral purposes – Section 91 of Evidence Act excludes oral evidence in proof of the terms of such agreement to sale which requires registration whereas Section 49 of the Registration Act prohibits its receivability in evidence. (Paras 33,36 & 38)
HELD : The document has been read by the trial court not only for a limited purpose but for extensive purpose for recognising the rights of the parties. that being the position, the judgment is vitiated. The findings on Issue No. 2 also proceeds on the basis of recording in writing of Ex.A1. No hostile animus has been pressed into service. The being th position, that finding is not sustainable. The finding of Issue No. 1 needs to be disturbed. Consequently, the whole judgment deserves to be set aside. The judgment and decree are hereby set aside. (Para 36)
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
-
The suit involved a claim for partition of an ancestral property, which included both immovable and movable assets, with the plaintiff asserting a one-third share based on inheritance rights (!) .
-
The defendant contested the claim by asserting that the plaintiff had relinquished his rights through a deed of relinquishment (Ex.A1) and that the defendant had also acquired rights through adverse possession (!) .
-
The trial court framed multiple issues, including the admissibility of the relinquishment deed, the rights of the parties, adverse possession, and whether the suit was barred by time (!) .
-
The trial court found that the relinquishment deed (Ex.A1) was neither properly stamped nor registered, rendering it inadmissible in evidence. However, the court permitted it to be examined for collateral purposes, specifically to understand the nature of possession (!) (!) .
-
The court held that unregistered documents cannot be admitted in evidence even for collateral purposes, and that the document’s use for recognizing rights was beyond its permissible scope. This approach was deemed legally incorrect, as Section 49 of the Registration Act and Section 91 of the Evidence Act prohibit such documents from being used to prove rights or terms of agreements affecting immovable property (!) (!) .
-
The court emphasized that the document was improperly used to determine the rights of the parties, which exceeded the limited scope of collateral purpose. As a result, the findings based on this document were considered unsustainable, leading to the conclusion that the entire judgment was vitiated and needed to be set aside (!) (!) .
-
The appellate court highlighted that once a document is admitted into evidence, it should be read and used accordingly, and that inadmissible documents cannot be used to establish legal rights or facts. The improper admission of the relinquishment deed was a significant error warranting remand for re-evaluation of issues excluding the inadmissible document (!) (!) .
-
The judgment and decree of the trial court were accordingly set aside, and the matter was remanded for a fresh decision, with instructions to exclude the improperly admitted document from consideration (!) .
-
The legal principles reaffirmed include that unregistered documents affecting immovable property are inadmissible in evidence for establishing rights, and that such documents cannot be used even for collateral purposes. The proper legal approach requires strict adherence to registration and stamping requirements (!) (!) .
-
The case underscores the importance of proper procedural compliance in the admissibility of documents and the limits of collateral use, emphasizing that inadmissible documents cannot form the basis of legal findings or judgments.
(2). The case of the plaintiff-appellant in the suit was that there is an ancestral house belonging to their deceased father Chandanmalji. The mother has also died. The plaintiff has a share in the ancestral house and the movable property. The appellant- plaintiff claimed that he has one third share because there are three brothers, each one is entitled to have his share in the movable and immovable property.
(3). The defendants contested the suit and said that the appellant has relinquished his title by Ex.A1 and they further came with the case that they have acquired right in the property by adverse possession.
(4). From the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial court:-
1. Whether the plaintiff has no share in the movable and immovable properties, described in paras 2,3 and 4 of the plaint and has relinquished his rights, as detailed in para 3 of the written-statement?
2. Whether the defendant No. 2 is in adverse possession of the disputed house property?
3. Whether the suit is barred by time?
4. Whether the defendant No. 2 is entitled to compensatory costs from the plaintiff?
5. Whether at the time of the death of the parties mother there was movable property worth Rs. 20,000/- and the immovable property worth Rs. 25000/-?
6. Whether the release-deed, dated 19.6.65, is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration and for want of proper stamp-duty?
7. Relief?
(5). Issue No. 6 related to the basic document which is the bone of contention in the suit. Issue NO 6 was decided by the trial court as a preliminary issue. The trial court held in relation to issue No. 6, that the deed of relinquishment. Ex.A1 is neither properly stamped nor is registered one, so it is in-admissible in evidence. However, the learned trial court has observed that it may be looked into for determining the nature of the possession i.e. only for collateral purpose. The trial court was of the opinion that collateral purpose i.e. for showing the nature and character of possession, the document is admissible in evidence despite the fact that the document is un-registered one. There were two defects in the document Ex.A1, one is that it was not properly stamped, and second, it was un-registered. The defect regarding stamps was ordered to be removed by the trial court by order dated 22.5.76 and a penalty was levied under the Stamps Act.
(6). The trial court proceeded to decide the suit after recording of the evidence. A reading of the judgment in question shows that the issues have been decided by the trial court treating Ex.A1 to be a document which had the effect of divesting the plaintiff of his rights in the property of his father.
(7). Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that reading of the document Ex.A1 was available for limited purpose as per order dated 22.5.76. The Court has read it to the effect that it has the effect of divesting the plaintiff of his rights in the ancestral property. This kind of reading cannot be said to be the one limited to collateral purpose. Reading it as such means, to read the document as a conveyance. Sec. 49 of the Registration Act makes a document necessarily registerable where rights are affected in an immovable property.
(8). Section 49 reads as under:
Effect of non-registration of documents required to be registered - No document required by Sec. 17 (or by any provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882),) to be registered shall-
(a) affect any immovable property comprised therein, or
(b) confer any power to adopt, or
(c) be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power, unless it has been registered.
(9). The learned counsel for t
