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
Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)
| 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
Sita Ram Bhama vs. Ramvatar Bhama
Bipin Shantilal Panchal vs. State of Gujarat and Another
K.Kasinathan and Another vs. N.Umasankar
S.Kaladevi vs. V.R.Somasundaram and Others
Arulsigamani and Another vs. S.Vaiguntha Rajan and Another
Thangamuthu and Others vs. A.Jeyaraj
Rajamanickam and 3 others vs. Elangovan and 4 others
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.
A Sale Deed must be registered to be admissible in evidence, regardless of its historical context or the law in force at the time of execution.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that unregistered and insufficiently stamped documents, even if not covered by specific consequences of non-registration, are inadmissible in ev....
Unregistered sale deeds cannot be admitted as evidence to establish rights due to statutory inadmissibility, even if previously marked as evidence under objection.
An unstamped document is inadmissible for any purpose, including collateral purpose, as per Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
Documents not duly stamped are inadmissible in evidence for any purpose under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, including collateral purposes.
Unregistered and unstamped documents are inadmissible in evidence and cannot be impounded for stamp duty under the Indian Stamp Act.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.