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

2024 Supreme(Mad) 2518

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P. DHANABAL, J.
V. Ramesh - Petitioner
Vs.
V. Nagaraj - Respondent
C.R.P.(PD).No.4305 of 2022 and C.M.P.No.22626 of 2022
Decided On : 04-06-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. A. E. Ravichandran
For the Respondent: Mr. S. L. Sudarsanan

An unregistered Sale deed may be admissible for collateral purposes if proper procedures, including stamp duty payment, are followed, according to Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act.

Headnote:(A) Indian Registration Act - Section 49 - Documents - The court addressed the admissibility of an unregistered Sale deed dated 08.02.1999, which was rejected by the Trial Court. The petitioner claimed it was relevant for proving possession, not ownership. (Paras 1-2, 6-8, 17-19, 24-26)

(B) Legal Principle - The non-registration of a document does not preclude its use for collateral purposes if admissibility conditions are met, including payment of stamp duty. (Paras 14, 24-25)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a brother of the respondent, sought to mark an unregistered Sale deed in a permanent injunction suit, claiming possession derived from that deed. The Trial Court rejected it as inadmissible for collateral purposes under the Registration Act.

Findings of Court:
The order rejecting the unregistered document was found unsustainable; the petitioner could present the document for collateral purpose subject to conditions.

Issues: The main issues hinged on the admissibility of the unregistered Sale deed and whether it could be used to establish possession in a suit for injunction without claiming ownership.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that unregistered documents could be admitted for collateral purposes if adequately addressed per legal requirements, rejecting the Trial Court's misapplication of law.

Result: The Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the Trial Court's order is set aside.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)

Question 1?

What is the admissibility of an unregistered sale deed for collateral purposes under Section 49 of the Registration Act, when stamp duty and penalties are paid?

Question 2?

What are the conditions under which an unregistered document can be received for collateral purposes in a suit for permanent injunction or possession?

Question 3?

How does the Proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act interact with collateral purposes and the Stamp Act in the Tamil Nadu High Court context?


Table of Content
1. filing of civil revision petition (Para 1 , 2 , 6)
2. summary of the plaintiff's and defendant's positions (Para 3 , 4)
3. trial court proceedings and evidence considerations (Para 5)
4. arguments regarding the admissibility of unregistered sale deed (Para 7 , 9)
5. judicial consideration of legal arguments presented (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
6. legal precedents regarding registration and admissibility (Para 13 , 20 , 21)
7. court's evaluation of the applicability of registration requirements. (Para 18)
8. legal understanding regarding collateral purpose of unregistered documents. (Para 19)
9. clarification of collateral purpose for unregistered documents (Para 22 , 23)
10. trial court's allowance of evidence for collateral purpose (Para 24 , 25)
11. outcome of the civil revision petition (Para 26 , 27)

ORDER :

P. DHANABAL, J.

1. This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred as against the order passed in I.A.No.2 of 2022 in O.S.No.103 of 2018 on the file of the Principal District Munsif's Court, Kanchipuram, wherein, the respondent herein has filed a petition before the Trial Court, to reject the unregistered Sale deed, dated08.02.1999 and the same was allowed.

2. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent therein has preferred this Civil Revision Petition.

3. The brief facts of the petition filed by the petitioner before the Trial Court are as follows:

The petitioner is the defendant in the suit and the main suit was filed by the respondent who is brother of the petitioner for relief of permanent injunction. The petitioner/defendant filed written statement on 22.10.2018. The respondent/plaintiff, along with the plaint has filed two documents as Document Nos.3 and 4, dated 11.09.1998, the Cancellation of Mortgage deed and unregistered Sale deed, dated 08.02.1999. The above said documents are inadmissible in the eye of law. At the time of trial, the respondent/plaintiff wanted to mark the said unregistered Sale deed and the same was objected, since it was unregistered document. The said document cannot be looked into for collateral purpose. Therefore, he filed a petition under order XIII Rule 3 of C.P.C for rejection of inadmissible document.

4. The gist of counter filed by the respondent are as follows:

The respondent being the plaintiff has filed a suit for relief of permanent Injunction and he is the owner of the suit property in pursuance of the registered Sale deed, dated 11.04.1990. Out of income of the respondent/plaintiff, the suit property was purchased by him for valuable consideration. But on instigation of his parents, the petitioner/defendant's name was added because, he was minor at that time. The respondent/plaintiff only discharged the mortgage loan for purchase of property. While so, in the year 1999, the mother of the petitioner and the respondent, namely, Thulasiammal has sold the minor defendant's half share of property to this respondent/plaintiff for valuable consideration through unregistered Sale deed. Eventhough entire consideration was paid by the respondent/plaintiff, but the said Thulasiammal, evading registration by one and then pretext. Bonafide believe words of the mother Thulasiammal, this respondent has not insisting immediate registration of Sale deed. In pursuance of the Sale deed, this respondent/plaintiff becomes absolute owner of the suit property and enjoying absolutely. The said unregistered Sale deed was produced as document before the Trial Court and the petitioner/defendant had raised objection for marking of unregistered document. The respondent/plaintiff did not seek relief of declaration in pursuance of the unregistered Sale deed and the said document is only to show his absolute possession of the property. It is pertinent to note that at the time of numbering the suit itself, the Trial Court has directed to pay the stamp duty, penalty in respect of unregistered Sale deed and this respondent/plaintiff has also paid the stamp duty, penalty as per the directions of the Court. Therefore

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 Back to top