Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. VENUGOPAL
S. Kaladevi
Versus
V.R. Somasundaram & Others
C.R.P.(PD).No.261 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008
Decided On : 13-11-2008
Unregistered Sale Deed - Admissibility for Collateral Purpose - The court held that an unregistered sale deed cannot be admitted in evidence for want of registration, and its contents cannot be employed for any collateral purpose. The decision was influenced by the legal principle that a collateral transaction should not create or extinguish title, interest, right, or interest in immovable property, and if a document is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration, none of its terms can be admitted in evidence for any collateral purpose.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a revision petition against the trial court's order refusing to mark an unregistered sale deed as an exhibit in a civil case.
Finding of the Court:
The court affirmed the trial court's decision, stating that the unregistered sale deed cannot be admitted in evidence for want of registration, and its contents cannot be employed for any collateral purpose.
Issues: Admissibility of unregistered sale deed as an exhibit in a civil case.
Ratio Decidendi: The pivotal question of whether a document is admissible in evidence depends on the nature and contents of the document and the facts and circumstances of each case. A collateral transaction should not create or extinguish title, interest, right, or interest in immovable property.
Final Decision: The civil revision petition was dismissed, and the trial court's order refusing to mark the unregistered sale deed as an exhibit was affirmed.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
An unregistered sale deed cannot be admitted into evidence for want of registration, and its contents cannot be used for any collateral purpose. This is because the legal requirement of registration is essential for the document to have evidentiary value in establishing rights or interests in immovable property (!) (!) .
The admissibility of a document depends on its nature, contents, and the facts and circumstances of each case. In particular, a collateral transaction should not create or extinguish rights, interests, or title in immovable property through such a document (!) .
Even if a sale deed is not admissible as evidence of title due to lack of registration, it may still be examined for collateral purposes, such as understanding possession or other related facts. However, such collateral use is limited and cannot be employed to prove rights or interests in property that require registration (!) .
The court affirmed the trial court's decision to refuse the marking of the unregistered sale deed as an exhibit, emphasizing that documents inadmissible in evidence cannot be used to prove any clause or interest, especially in the context of creating or extinguishing rights in immovable property (!) .
The case involved a dispute where the document in question was a sale deed that was not registered, and the court held that its contents could not be employed for collateral purposes, leading to the dismissal of the revision petition (!) .
The legal principle underscores that registration is a mandatory requirement for conveying title and that documents not registered cannot be relied upon for establishing or extinguishing rights in immovable property, reinforcing the importance of compliance with registration laws (!) (!) .
The decision highlights that procedural stages, such as interlocutory decisions regarding document admissibility, should be approached with caution, and the ultimate admissibility depends on the legal requirements and the purpose for which the document is being used (!) .
The court also noted that the purpose of examining such documents is limited to understanding possession or factual circumstances, not to prove substantive rights or interests that require registration (!) .
These key points collectively reinforce the legal requirement that only registered sale deeds can be used as evidence to establish rights or interests in immovable property, and unregistered deeds are restricted to collateral considerations without evidentiary value for substantive rights.
The civil revision petitioner/petitioner/plaintiff has filed this revision petition as against the order dated 112. 2007 in regard to the marking of plaint first document viz., the unregistered sale deed dated 27.02.2006 in O.S.No.17 of 2007 passed by the Principal Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam.
2. The trial Court, in its order dated 112. 007, has inter alia opined that the unregistered sale deed dated 27.02.2006 being the first item of document mentioned in the plaint is not a one to be marked.
.3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/ plaintiff contends that the document has been sufficiently stamped but the same has not been registered and this fact has not been taken note of by the trial Court and further that the procedure of deciding the admissibility of a document in the interlocutory stage has been deprecated in various decisions and that the trial Court has not taken into account of the fact that the respondents have entered into an oral sale agreement on 27.02.2006 agreeing to sell their property for a sum of Rs.1,83,000/-and after receiving the entire amount, arrangements were made to register the sale deed on the same day and that a sale deed was made ready and all the parties were present before the Sub Registrar Office, Punjaipuliyampatti and the Registrar has refused to register it on the ground that there was an order of attachment over the properties as per the order made in I.A.No.346 of 2004 in O.S.NO.234 of 2004 and the said issue has been settled amicably, but the respondents took a different stand and has refused to register the sale deed and there is no legal impediment to mark the document for a collateral purpose and therefore, prays for allowing the revision petition in the interest of justice.
.4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner relies on the decision in Bipin Shantilal Panchal V. State of Gujarat and another (2001) 3 SCC 1) wherein the Honble Supreme Court has observed that it is an archaic practice that during the evidence-collecting stage, whenever any objection is raised regarding admissibility of any material in evidence the court does not proceed further without passing order on such objection. Such practices when realized through the course of long period to be hindrances which impede steady and swift progress of trial proceedings must be recast or remoulded to give way for better substitutes which would help acceleration of trial proceedings. He also cites the decision in Bondar Singh and others V. Nihal Singh and others (2003) 4 SCC 161) wherein the Honble Court has observed as follows:
.Under the law a sale deed is required to be properly stamped and registered before it can convey title to the vendee. However, legal position is clear that a document like the sale deed in the present case, even though not admissible in evidence, can be looked into for collateral purposes. In the present case the collateral purpose to be seen is the nature of possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land.
5. Yet another decision in Venugopal alias Alagarsamy (died) and others V. Bajanai Alagarsamy and another (2004) 3 M.L.J. 362 at page 363) wherein this Court has observed that validity unregistered documents inadmissible in evidence but may be considered for collateral purpose.
6. It is well settled that the pivotal question whether a document is admissible in evidence or not depends upon the nature and contents of the documents and also the facts and circumstances of each case, in the considered opinion of this Court. However, the moot question to be considered is whether the document by itself creates or extinguishes rights in immovable property worth more than Rs.100/-. In finding out the true nature of document, the contextual facts will also be borne in mind.
.7. At this stage, this Court points out that in the decision K.B. Saha & Sons Private Limited V. Development Consultant Limited (2008 (5) CTC 260) wherein the Honble Supreme Court has inter alia obse
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
