Unregistered sale deeds cannot be admitted as evidence to establish rights due to statutory inadmissibility, even if previously marked as evidence under objection.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner took out an application under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC, in E.A.No.192 of 2025, for receipt of two documents, namely, the registered sale deed dated 05.08.1996 and an unregistered sale deed dated 25.03.2016 as exhibits in E.A.No.128 of 2024 (Application under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC).The said application, on contest, came to be dismissed, as against which, the present revision petition has been filed.

2. I have heard Mr.N.Suresh, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.N.Manoharan for Mr.D.Vasanth, learned counsel for the respondents. I have also gone through the records, including the order impugned in the revision petition, besides various decisions on which reliance has been placed on by both the learned counsel.

3. Mr.N.Suresh, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would state that the revision petitioner claims to be in possession of the subject property under an unregistered sale deed. It is his further contention that the antecedent original sale deed in favour of his vendor, who is also the vendor of the contesting respondents, was also handed over to the petitioner and the petitioner was also willing to pay the necessary stamp duty, together with penalty, in order for the unregistered sale deed to be exhibited and received as evidence in the Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC application.

4. In fact, Mr.N.Suresh, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, pointing out to the certified copies of the said unregistered sale deed, would bring to my attention that the said document, along with the registered sale date that, in fact, already marked as Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 and the Court, while assigning the exhibit number, has not noted any objections to have been raised on the side of the respondents. It is therefore the submission of Mr.N.Suresh, that once the documents have been marked, then there was no occasion or necessity for the Court to refuse permission to receive the said document.

5. Mr.N.Suresh, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would also invite my attention to the chief examination, where an objection with regard to marking of the said unregistered sale deed is found. Doubting the said endorsement, regarding the objection, Mr.N.Suresh, learned counsel would further contend that it appears to be introduced later as the objection portion in brackets is in bold print, unlike the other portions available in the said page. He would also state that specific grounds have been raised in this regard in the CRP as well.

6. Without prejudice to the preliminary submissions made herein above, Mr.N.Suresh, learned counsel would state that the petitioner is admittedly in possession and the right of the decree holder to enter into possession are being tested in the application filed under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC. Even assuming the sale deed, under which the petitioner claims, according to Mr.N.Suresh is unregistered, even then, for collateral purposes to establish the character of possession of the revision petitioner, especially the starting point, his possession being prior in point of time to even the right of the respondent/decree holder is concerned would state that the documents are absolutely necessary and the trial Court ought not to have refused p