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
Result: Civil Revision Petition allowed.
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.
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
Satish Chand Makhan v. Govardhan Das Byas
A. Kishore @ Kantha Rao v. G. Srinivasulu
K. Ramamoorthi v. C. Surendranatha Reddy
Yellapu Uma Maheswari v. Buddha Jagadheeswara Rao
Vyasashramam, Amanduru village v. Chunduru Bhooshana Kumari
Chinnappareddigari Pedda Muthyalareddy v. Chinnappareddigari Venkatareddy
SupremeToday
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.