The main legal point established in the judgment is that an unregistered document affecting immovable property may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by a registered instrument, as provided in Section 49 of the Registration Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 24.11.2017 passed by the learned trial Court in Civil Suit No. 84-A/13 whereby the learned Court has refused to mark the exhibit on the agreement to sell dated 6.9.2010 on the count that it is required to be registered, therefore, it cannot be exhibited under the provision of Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908.

2. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the aforesaid order is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Kaladevi vs. B. R. Soma Sundaram, reported in 2010 (III) MPLJ 500 wherein, it has been held that a document required to be registered, if unregistered, can be admissible in evidence in a suit for specific performance for collateral purposes. He has again relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Court as reported in 2017 (III) MPLJ 97. It is alleged by the counsel for the petitioner that an application for impounding the document was also filed by him and he is ready to pay the remaining stamp duty and penalty as per the provisions contained under Section 35 of the Stamp Act but the trial Court without considering the aforesaid preposition has rejected the application on the ground that in terms of the amended provisions in the Registration Act with respect to compulsory registration of a document relating to an immovable property which was effected from 14.01.2010 the document cannot be taken on record and marked as an exhibit. Further more Section 49 of Registration Act, 1908 provides that an unregistered document cannot be taken into consideration even for collateral purpose. It is submitted that the learned trial Court has committed a grave error in rejecting the application. He has prayed for setting aside of the impugned order with a direction to the learned trial Court to consider the aforesaid document and also send the document to the learned Collector for impounding the same in terms of Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908.

3. Per contra, the learned Panel Lawyer has given his appearance in the matter and has argued that the learned trial Court has committed an error in not sending the document to the learned Collector for impounding. It is contended that the petitioner has rightly filed the application for impounding the document which should have been allowed by the learned trial Court. He has relied upon Section 49 of the Registration Act and has argued that in terms of the aforesaid provisions the documents should have been sent to the competent authority for impounding as the petitioner is also ready for impounding of the document, therefore, the impugned order to the aforesaid effect is illegal and has prayed for sending the document to the competent authority for impounding purpose.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. It is seen from the order sheet dated 8.3.2018 that this Hon'ble Court was pleased to stay the further proceedings of the trial Court. Thereafter, the matter has been adjourned continuously. From the record, it is seen that a civil suit has been filed for specific performance of contract before the trial Court with respect to an agreement to sale dated 6.9.10. The case was fixed for recording of plaintiff evidence before the learned trial Court and at the time of exhibiting of the agreement dated 6.9.10, an objection was raised with respect to the document before the trial Court to the effect that the same is an unregistered document and cannot be marked as an exhibit. The learned trial Court after considering the objections filed by the defendants has refused to take the aforesaid document on record and mark as an exhibit. Thereafter, an application was filed by the petitioner before the trial Court under Section 33 and 35 of the stamp Act and has prayed for sending the document before the Stamp Collector for payment of insufficient stamp duty. The application was filed on 9.1.2018. No reply to the aforesaid application was