IMPORTANT POINT
Unregistered documents cannot be used as evidence for transactions affecting immovable property unless for collateral purposes, as per the Registration Act.

ORDER :

Laxmi Narayana Alishetty, J.

Heard Sri S.Ganesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ali Faraz Farooqui, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the material available on record.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the docket order, dated 14.02.2023, passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Court, Ranga Reddy District in O.S.No.337 of 2007.

3. By the impugned order, the trial Court declined to mark the agreement, dated 22.11.1986, executed by the Postal Employees Co-Operative a Construction Society which was validated by the District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District, as exhibit on behalf of defendant No.5, on the ground that sale deed must be compulsorily registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act.

4. The subject suit was filed seeking to declare the plaintiff as the sole and absolute lawful owner of the suit schedule property and consequently, to direct the defendants, their men, etc., to vacate and hand over the vacant physical possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff; for the relief of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their employees, men, etc., from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and for mesne profits.

5. As per the proviso to Section 49 of Registration Act, collateral purpose implies that content of such a document can be used for purpose other than for which it has been executed or entered into by the parties or for a purpose remote to the main transaction.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the District Registrar validated the document by collecting the deficit stamp duty and once document is validated, the same is admissible under Section 42(2) of the Stamps Act; and that the said document was obtained under the Right to Information Act and therefore, the same should have been admitted under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act. He further contended that the said document can be looked for collateral purpose of proving the possession of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property.

7. To buttress his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decisions of this Court in Smt Kamala Devi & Others Vs. Y. Anita Reddy & Others, 2019 SCC Online TS 2059 and M. Narayana Reddy (died) & Ors. v. M. Janga Reddy (C.R.P.No.566 of 2018, dated 21.12.2018).

8. In Kamala Devi’s case (supra), this Court at Para 15 placed reliance on Bondar Singh v. Nihal Singh (2003) 4 SCC 161, wherein it was held that that a document like a sale deed in the present case, even though not admissible in evidence, can be looked into as collateral purpose and in the said case, collateral purpose is the nature of possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land and it shows the initial possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land was not illegal and not unauthorized.

8.1. It was further held in Para 17 as under:-

“An unregistered sale deed is admissible for collateral purpose to the limited extent of showing possession of plaintiff and that in a document of sale, possession is treated as collateral to the main transaction affecting the immovable property.”

8.2. Further, in Para 19 reliance was placed on K.B. Saha & Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Development Consultant Ltd. {2008 (8) SCC 564}, wherein it was held that a document required to be registered will not be admissible in evidence if the same is not registered and however, the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act provides that such unregistered document can however be used as evidence of collateral purpose and the said collateral transaction must be independent of, or divisible from the transaction to the effect which the law required registration.

8.3. Ultimately, at para 22, the Hon’ble Supreme Court permitted the petitioners to mark the documents in evidence not for the purpose of proving their acquisition of title of the suit schedule property under the sale deeds, but only to the limited extent of showing their possession