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