Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Mad) 2911

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.T. ASHA, J.
Bakkiyam - Appellant
Versus
Narayanan - Respondent
CRP.No.636 of 2024 and CMP. No.3160 of 2024
Decided on : 25-03-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : M/s.S.P.Chokalingam
For the Respondent: M/s.K.Shakespeare

An unregistered sale deed cannot be admitted as evidence for ownership in a declaration suit, violating statutory provisions of the Registration Act and Transfer of Property Act.

Headnote:
(A) Registration Act, 1908 - Sections 17(1)(b), 49(c); Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 54; Indian Stamp Act - Section 35 - Unregistered sale deed - The court addressed the admissibility of an unregistered sale deed in evidence, emphasizing that such documents cannot be received unless registered, except for specific performance or collateral purposes, and must be duly stamped. (Paras 18-30)

(B) Evidence - Admissibility of documents - The court clarified that an unregistered document cannot be admitted to prove ownership in a suit for declaration, as it contravenes statutory requirements. (Paras 24-30)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff claimed ownership of agricultural land based on an unregistered sale deed from 1999, while defendants contended exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property. The trial court allowed the sale deed to be marked as evidence, which the defendants challenged.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the unregistered sale deed could not be admitted as evidence for ownership or possession due to statutory provisions.

Issues: The main issue was whether an unregistered sale deed could be admitted in evidence for proving possession or ownership.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that an unregistered sale deed cannot be received in evidence to prove ownership, as it violates the Registration Act and Transfer of Property Act.

Result: Civil Revision Petition allowed; order set aside.

ORDER :

The defendants are the revision petitioners before this Court who seek to challenge the order passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Attur in I.A.No.5 of 2023 in OS.No.79 of 2015.

2. The revision arises against the order allowing an unregistered sale deed dated 17.03.1999 being marked as an Exhibit on the side of the plaintiff.

3. The facts which have culminated in the filing of the Civil Revision Petition are hereinbelow set out and the parties are referred to in the same ranking as before the Trial Court.

4. Before proceeding to set out the facts a genealogical table would make it easy to understand the relationship between the parties to the proceedings.

5. The suit schedule property measures an extent of 0.62 1/2 cents comprised in S.No.178/3, Old Paimash No.46, Vannan Kattu Punjai, totally measuring 1.25 acres in Thumbal Village, Attur Taluk, Salem District. The property has been described within four boundaries together all the easementary rights appurtenant to the property.

6. The plaintiff would contend that the suit properties are agricultural lands. On 11.02.1941, a larger extent of the suit property was purchased by the plaintiff’s grandfather Kandansamban from one Pakkini Sahib, son of Babu Sahib. On the demise of Kandansamban, the property devolved on his daughter, the 1st defendant and his son Thangavel. The siblings had partitioned the property equally, with each taking an extent of 0.62 1/2 cents. On 17.03.1999, Thangavel sold his share to the plaintiff under an unregistered sale deed for a total sale consideration of Rs.50,000/-. The plaintiff would submit that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same since then. The defendants who were totally strangers to the property were attempting to encroach into the suit property. Therefore, the plaintiff has come forward with the suit for declaration and injunction.

7. The 2nd defendant had filed a written statement which was adopted by defendants 1, 3 to 5 interalia denying the various allegations contained in the plaint and putting the plaintiffs to strict proof of the same.

8. The defendants would contend that after the demise of the 1st defendant's father, the entire extent of 1.25 acres was being exclusively enjoyed by the 1st defendant, as her brother Thangavel had left for Bombay at a very young age and never returned. Furthermore, Thangavel had passed away in Bombay 20 years before the filing of the suit, and since then, the property in its entirety has been enjoyed and possessed solely by the 1st defendant.

9. On 27.10.2009, the 1st defendant had settled 30 cents on the 2nd defendant under a registered document and on 27.10.2003 she had further allotted 6 cents each to the 3rd and the 4th defendant under a registered document. Further, on 28.11.2014, the 1st defendant had settled 6 cents to the 5th defendant under a registered document. That apart, 55 cents were already sold and 2 cents had been gifted to Pazhani, son of Thangavel. The remaining extent of 23 cents was in the possession and enjoyment of the 1st defendant over which neither the plaintiff nor defendants 2 to 5 have any right. The defendants therefore sought to have the suit dismissed.

10. After the evidence of P.W.1, the plaintiff had taken out an application to exhibit the sale deed dated 17.03.1999 and permit the plaintiff to mark the sale deed in evidence after considering the objections. The plaintiff would contend that the said document is required to prove his possession to the suit property.

11. A counter has been filed in the above application inter alia contending that the document cannot be received in evidence as there is a clear bar under Section 17(1)(b) and 49(c) of the Registration Act as also Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act.

12. After hearing the parties, the learned District Munsif, Attur, had allowed the application. Challenging the same, the petitioners are before this Court.

13. M/s.SP.Chockalingam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revision