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

2009 Supreme(MP) 971

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Arun Mishra and Sushma Shrivastava, JJ.
Appellants: Koushal Kishore and Anr.
Vs.
Respondent: Krishnakant Chaturvedi and Ors.
Decided On: 15.09.2009

The admissibility of unregistered documents for collateral purposes under the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908.

Headnote:

unregistered document - admissibility in evidence - Registration Act, 1908, Section 17(2)(xi) - Chandra Prakash v. Badrilal 1982 MPWN 32 - Mohan Singh v. Rajabeti 1982 MPWN Note No. 140 - Seth Pratapsingh Moholalbhai and Anr. v. Keshavlal Harilal Setalwad and Anr. AIR 1935 Privy Council 21 - Gurdial Singh Kehar Singh and Ors. v. Kartar Singh and Ors. AIR 1964 P&H 141 - Avinash Kumar Chauhan v. Vijay Krishna Mishra (2009) 2 SCC 532

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration as Bhumiswami and in possession of disputed land, which was earlier mortgaged and redeemed. The defendants objected to the demarcation of land and interference in the plaintiffs' possession. The admissibility of an unregistered document purporting to extinguish the mortgage deed was in question.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the unregistered document required registration as it purported to extinguish the mortgage deed. However, it could be admitted in evidence for collateral purposes under the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908.

Issues: Admissibility of unregistered document purporting to extinguish the mortgage deed and its use in evidence for collateral purposes.

Ratio Decidendi: The document required registration as it purported to extinguish the mortgage deed, but could be admitted in evidence for collateral purposes under the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908.

Final Decision: The court modified the order passed by the Trial Court, allowing the unregistered document to be looked into for collateral purposes under the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908.

ORDER

Arun Mishra, J.

1. The short question involved in the writ petition is that whether an unregistered document purporting to extinguish the mortgage deed can be said to be admissible in evidence without being registered and whether it can be used in evidence for collateral purpose.

2. The facts, in short, are that plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that they are Bhumiswami and in possession of disputed land. Plaintiff No. 1 is owner of 3/4th portion, plaintiff No. 2 is owner of l/4th portion of said land. Prayer for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the interference in possession at the hands of defendants has also been made. The property is situated at Village Thaukar, Tehsil Hujur, District Rewa.

3. The plaintiffs came with the case that earlier the land was mortgaged with one Koshal Prasad Pandey which was redeemed on 9-6-1961. The sale deed was also executed by plaintiff No. 1 and his uncle Har Prasad, since deceased on 12-5-1966, in favour of Koshal Kishore the land was to be redeemed, in case mortgaged money was paid otherwise the sale would become final. On 23-5-1969 amount was paid to Ugrasen Prasad, thus, conditional sale came to an end, land stood redeemed.

4. The defendants have objected to the demarcation of land and tried to interfere in the possession of plaintiffs, hence, the suit was preferred. The plaintiffs have relied upon unregistered deed (Exh. P-3) dated 23-5-69 which is in the form of receipt. The objection as to its admissibility was before the Trial Court. The Trial Court by the impugned order has held that document being unregistered could not be admitted in evidence and exhibit could not be marked, hence, writ petition has been preferred.

5. Shri S.K. Dubey, learned Counsel for petitioners, has submitted that endorsement of payment of mortgaged money on mortgage deed itself is enough for redemption. Registration of document is not necessary. Petitioner's Counsel has relied upon decision of this Court in Chandra Prakash v. Badrilal 1982 MPWN 32. Petitioner's Counsel has also submitted that document dated 23-5-1969 simple acknowledgment of redemption of the land, thus, the document dated 23-5-1969 does not require registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. He has also relied upon decision of Mohan Singh v. Rajabeti 1982 MPWN Note No. 140.

6. Shri Pranay Verma, learned Counsel for respondents, has relied upon Section 17(2)(xi) of the Registration Act, 1908 to contend that document purport to extinguish the mortgage deed, is not a receipt simplicitor, thus, document required registration. He has supported the order passed by the Trial Court. He has also referred to the decision of Seth Pratapsingh Moholalbhai and Anr. v. Keshavlal Harilal Setalwad and Anr. AIR 1935 Privy Council 21 and Gurdial Singh Kehar Singh and Ors. v. Kartar Singh and Ors. AIR 1964 P&H 141.

7. First question for consideration is whether the document dated 23-5-1969 purports to extinguish the mortgage deed, for determining the question, contents of document are material. The document dated 23-5-69 has been styled as a receipt. The bare reading of it goes to indicate that in the first part, factum of conditional sale has been mentioned; it has been mentioned that today the balance sum had been received by Ugrasen Prasad and with the receipt of balance consideration which was secured under the deed dated 12-5-1966, the right, title or interest of Ugrasen, has come to an end.

8. Section 17(2)(xi) of the Registration Act, 1908 reads thus:

17. (2)(xi) any endorsement on a mortgage-deed acknowledging the payment receipt for payment of money due under a mortgage when the receipt does not purport to extinguish the mortgage; or

When the aforesaid provision is read with Section 17(1)(b) and 17(1)(c) it is apparent that in case receipt purports to extinguish the mortgage then it would require registration. Bare reading of the receipt goes to indicate that it purports to extinguish the mortgage right, title or interest









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
whatsapp-icon Back to top