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

A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO
Moghal Sardar Hussain Baig – Appellant
Versus
Syed Farveej Begum – Respondent


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

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













































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
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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top