Truth/reality of unregistered document has to be proved independently.

The above Revision Petition has been preferred against the order of the District Munsif, Cuddalore refusing to admit the unregistered lease executed by the respondents in favour of the petitioner as a documentary evidence. The petitioner sought to rely on the document to prove his character of possession which was collateral purpose to the terms of the lease deed. According to the petitioner, he was not relying on the document for proof of any terms in the document itself.

2. The District Munsif rejected the said application on the ground that the document is an unregistered one and therefore a document which is not registered under the provisions of S. 49 of the Registration Act. could not be admitted as additional document.

3. I have heard Mr. Kannan and Mrs. Hema Sampath for the respective parties. According to Mr. Kannan the document of unregistered lease deed is not totally inadmissible and that it is admissible for proof of collateral purpose. Referring to S. 49 of the Registration Act, he submitted that the said section does not bar reception of an unregistered document in evidence. Mr. Kannan in support of his contention cited the following decisions :

(1) 1968 AIR(Pat) 302 at 305 (FB)

(2) 1973 AIR(Mad) 262(3) 1977 AIR(Ker) 196 (sic)

(4) 1978 AIR(Kant) 143.

Arguing contra the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the document which is required to be registered is not admissible in evidence at all and that since the unregistered deed has been set forth in the plaint and made out as the basis for claiming tenancy, the document is sought to be relied on for the main purpose itself. The learned counsel also contended that the relief of injunction itself is not maintainable through Civil Court. The learned counsel for the respondent cited the following decisions :

(1) Yasodammal v. Janakiammal, 1968 (1) MLJ 249 : 1968 AIR(Mad) 294)

(2) Ranganathan v. Venkatesan, 1995 (1) MLJ 159 : 1995 AIR(Mad) 146)

(3) Krishnamurthy v. Sokab Products Private Limited, 1996 (1) MLJ 218 : 1996 AIHC 5368).

4. Before proceeding to consider the rival submissions made by the respective counsels, it is better to consider the scope of S. 49 of the Registration Act.

Section 49 has been amended by S. 10 of the Transfer of Property (Amendment) Supplementary Act, 1929. The amendment in the first paragraph settles a doubt as to whether the section applies not only to documents compulsorily registrable under S. 17 of the Registration Act but also to documents of which registration is required by the Transfer of Property Act. The amending act came into force on the 1st April, 1930 and it has been held that it is not retrospective as to documents executed before that date. But the correct view is that it is not retrospective only with regard to suits instituted before the Act came into force.

4.1 Section 17 of the Registration Act deals with the documents of which registration is compulsory. The said section provides for compulsory registration of the documents mentioned in the section. That section is made effective by the present section which provides that any document so required to be registered shall not unless it has been so registered.

(1) affect any immovable property comprised therein or

(2) be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property.

It is important to observe that the section does not say that an unregistered document which requires to be registered shall be received in evidence. It says as evidence of any transaction affecting the property. It may be received in evidence for a collateral purpose even if that purpose does indirectly affect the property.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the document of unregistered lease deed is not totally inadmissible and the same is admissible for proof of collateral purpose. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel relied on the Full Bench(5 Judges) decision of the Patna High Court in Ugni v. Chowa Mahto, 1968 AIR(Pat) 302 (305),