An unregistered document cannot be exhibited in evidence for want of registration, and its admissibility for collateral purposes is subject to the provisions of the Registration Act.

Vivek Rusia, J.

This petition has been filed by defendant no. 1 being aggrieved by the order dated 18-02-2016 passed by the Civil Judge, Class-I, Badnawar, Dist. Dhar, by which the Court has held that the documents dated 01-11-1985 is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration.

2. The facts of the case are that on 29-07-2011, the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 has filed a suit for permanent injunction, possession against the present petitioner on the ground that they are the owner of the disputed agricultural land being survey no. 194 area 1.682 hectors and the defendant/petitioner be restrained from interfering in their possession. During pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs were dispossessed, therefore, by way of amendment, they sought decree of possession.

3. The petitioner defendant filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint contending that on 01-11-1985, father of the plaintiff nos. 1 to 3 and husband of respondent no. 4 Late Champalalji has sold the disputed land to the petitioner for consideration of Rs. 15,000/- and executed an agreement and handed over the possession to him. Along with written statement, the petitioner/defendant also filed counter claim.

4. The trial Court has framed issues and the evidence of the plaintiffs has been concluded and thereafter, the case was fixed for defendant's evidence. The defendant wanted to exhibit the agreement dated 01-01-1985 in his evidence. The plaintiff raised oral objection that since the said agreement is mortgage deed and is unregistered, therefore, the same is inadmissible in evidence.

5. Learned trial Court vide order dated 18-02-2016 has upheld the objection taken by the plaintiff and held that the said document cannot be exhibited being unregistered, hence defendant no. 1 has filed the present writ petition

6. Shri B.I. Mehta, counsel for the petitioner submits that learned trial Court has exercised its jurisdiction with material irregularity and illegality while upholding the objection taken by the defendant. Agreement dated 01-11-1985 is admissible in evidence for collateral purposes under section 49 of the Registration Act. The document has been impounded and the stamp duty has been paid, therefore, the same is admissible in evidence. In support of his contention, the petitioner has placed reliance over the judgment delivered in the case of K.B. Saha and sons Private Limited v. Development Consultant Limited reported in (2008) 8 SCC 564 on the point that unregistered document can be used in evidence for collateral purpose as provided under section 49 of the Act. He has also placed reliance over the judgment delivered in the case of Avinash Kumar Chouhan v. Vijay Krishna Mishra reported in (2009) 2 SCC 532 and Yellapu Uma Maheswari and another v. Buddha Jagadheeswararao and others reported in 2016 SAR (Civil) 226.

7. Per contra, Shri Nitin Phadke, counsel for the respondent has argued that learned trial Court has not committed any error of law while upholding objection taken by the plaintiff. The agreement dated 01-11-1985 is to be compulsorily registered under section 16 of the Registration Act and unless the same is registered, cannot be tendered into evidence. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance over the judgment delivered in the case of Sri Venkoba Rao Pawar v. Sri S. Chandrashekar reported in AIR 2008 SCW 4829 on the point that collateral purpose/transaction must be independent of, or divisible from the transaction which requires registration. He has further placed reliance over the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Natthu Khan v. Komal decided on 02-12-2008 in W.P. no. 2306/2008.

8. Respondent no. 1 to 4 filed the suit initially for permanent injunction on the ground that they are registered owner of the suit property and the defendants are trying to interfere in his possession. Later on, by way of amendment, decree of possession was also sought. The present petitioner being defendant has stated that vide de