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

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Sri A. Ramalingeswara Rao, J.
Moghal Sardar Hussain Baig —Petitioner
versus
Syed Farveej Begum —Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No.1115 of 2017
Decided on 12.7.2017

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Sri Namavaraplu Chantibabu, Advocate
For the Respondent:Sri Challa Siva Sankar, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
Proviso to Section 49 of Registration Act does not speak of collateral purpose but of collateral transaction.

Headnote:Registration Act, 1908—Sections 17 and 49—Evidentiary value of unregistered document—A document which is compulsorily registrable but not registered, cannot be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power—Proviso to Section 49 of Registration Act does not speak of collateral purpose but of collateral transaction—Whether a transaction is collateral or not needs to be decided on nature, purpose and recitals of document. (Para 13)

       Result: Civil Revision Petition allowed.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here is a simple explanation of the terms:

Collateral Purpose:
A collateral purpose refers to using a document for a reason that is separate from the main transaction or legal effect that the document was originally intended to serve. It involves relying on the document to prove something related to the possession, nature, or character of a property, rather than the primary legal rights or obligations created by the document itself (!) .

Collateral Transaction:
A collateral transaction is an independent or separate agreement or act that is related to but distinct from the main transaction affecting the property. It is a separate deal that does not directly create or affect rights in the property but may be used to prove certain facts, such as possession or the nature of a relationship, without affecting the primary transaction (!) .

In simple terms:
- Using a document for a collateral purpose means relying on it to show facts like possession or the nature of a property, rather than to prove the main deal or rights.
- A collateral transaction is an independent deal related to the property, which can be used to support or clarify facts without being the main transaction itself.

Let me know if you'd like a further simplified explanation or more details.


ORDER

Sri A. Ramalingeswara Rao, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This Civil Revision Petition arises out of an order in I.A.No.1670 of 2016 in O.S.No.298 of 2016 dated 19.01.2017 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Markapur.

3. The petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit, whereas the respondent is the defendant. The suit was filed for permanent injunction restraining the respondent from ejecting the petitioner from the plaint schedule premises until the expiry of term of lease under an agreement dated 04.04.2016. When the petition for grant of temporary injunction was coming up for enquiry, the petitioner tried to mark the said agreement dated 04.04.2016 which was a lease agreement and the respondent objected to the same on the ground that the said lease agreement was inadmissible in evidence as it is an unregistered one. The petitioner stated that though it is an unregistered lease agreement, it can be looked into for collateral purpose for proving possession and nature of possession. But, the respondent objected on the ground that the unregistered lease agreement is inadmissible in evidence even for collateral purpose of proving possession as the factum of lease being the contentious issue. Hence the lease agreement cannot be marked and it cannot be looked into even for collateral purpose as the main suit itself is based on the terms of the lease. The trial Court upheld the objection on the ground that the lease agreement was unregistered. Challenging the said order, the above CRP was filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner by relying on the decisions reported in Rana Vidya Bhushan Singh v. Ratiram, 1969(1) SCWR 341, Satish Chand Makhan v. Govardhan Das Byas, (1984) 1 SCC 369 : AIR 1984 SC 143 and A. Kishore @ Kantha Rao v. G. Srinivasulu, 2004(3) ALD 817 (DB) contended that the lease deed is admissible in evidence for collateral purpose of proving possession and nature of possession, though not for proving the terms of the lease deed and hence the order passed by the trial Court is erroneous.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the lease deed cannot be looked into even for collateral purpose and relied on the decisions reported in Satish Chand Makhan v. Govardhan Das Byas (supra), K.B. Saha and Sons Pvt. Ltd., v. Development Consultant Limited, 2008(6) ALD 92 (SC), K. Ramamoorthi v. C. Surendranatha Reddy, 2012(6) ALD 163, Yellapu Uma Maheswari v. Buddha Jagadheeswara Rao, (2015) 16 SCC 787, Vyasashramam, Amanduru village v. Chunduru Bhooshana Kumari, 2017 (1) ALT 299 and Moduraboina Deepika v. Kuna Sujatha Devi, 2017(1) LS (Hyd) 325.

6. Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, deals with the effect of unregistered documents which are required to be registered and the relevant provision reads as follows:

“49. Effect of non-registration of documents required to be registered:-

(a) ................

(b) ................

(c) be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power, unless it has been registered:

Provided that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by this Act, or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, or as evidence of part performance of a contract for the purposes of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, or as evidence of any collateral transaction nor required to be effected by registered instrument.”

7. In Chinnappareddigari Pedda Muthyalareddy v. Chinnappareddigari Venkatareddy, AIR 1969 AP 242, the Larger Bench of this Court examined the effect of unregistered partition deed and held that an unregistered partition deed is inadmissible in evidence and cannot be looked into for the terms of partition but can be looked into for the purpose of establishing a severance in status.

8. The Hon’bl



































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top