IMPORTANT POINT
Unregistered documents may be admissible for collateral purposes in partition suits, despite being inadmissible for primary purposes due to registration requirements.

ORDER :

Heard Sri Bankatlal Mandhani, learned counsel for the petitioner. Despite service of notice, none appears for the respondents. Perused the material available on record.

2. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the validity and legality of the order, dated 09.04.2019, passed by the III Additional District Judge, Warangal in O.S.No.228 of 2013, whereby the trial Court declined to receive the unregistered Award dated 11.06.2010 as evidence on behalf of the plaintiff, on the ground that the same is hit by Section 17 of the Registration Act.

3. The brief factual background which led to filing of the present Revision is that the suit was filed for the relief of partition of the suit properties into five equal shares and to allot one such share to the plaintiff by meets and bounds. The defendants filed their written statement and later, issues were settled for trial and the trial commenced. During the course of trial, plaintiff filed her chief-examination affidavit and intended to mark an unregistered Award dated 11.06.2010 passed by the Arbitrators in respect of partition of the family properties. However, learned counsel for the defendants opposed to mark the said Award on the ground that it is unregistered and hence, hit by Section 17 of the Registration Act.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the trial Court failed to appreciate that the unregistered Arbitral Award could be used for the collateral purpose i.e., to establish the character, nature, identity and location in respect of the subject matter and committed irregularity in declining to receive the said document in evidence on the ground that the said document is hit by Section 17 of the Registration Act inasmuch as it was unregistered and hence, prayed the Court to allow this Revision.

5. To buttress his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in M. Anasuya Devi v. M. Manik Reddy, (2003) 8 SCC 565, Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat & Anr, 2001 (3) SCC 1 and Yellapu Uma Maheswari v. Buddha Jagadheeswararao, (2015) 16 SCC 787.

6. In M. Anasuya Devi’s case (cited supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held as hereunder:-

“Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides for setting aside of the award on the grounds enumerated therein. It is not in dispute that an application for setting aside the award would not lie on any other ground, which is not enumerated in Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The question as to whether the award is required to be stamped and registered, would be relevant only when the parties would file the award for its enforcement under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. It is at this stage the parties can raise objections regarding its admissibility on account of non-registration and non-stamping under Section 17 of the Registration Act. In that view of the matter, the exercise undertaken to decide the said issue by the civil court as also by the High Court was entirely an exercise in futility. The question whether an award requires stamping and registration is within the ambit of Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure and not covered by Section 34 of the Act.”

7. In Bipin Shantilal Panchal’s case (cited supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court at para 14 of the judgment held as under:-

“Whenever an objection is raised during evidence-taking stage regarding the admissibility of any material or item of oral evidence the trial court can make a note of such objection and mark the objected document tentatively as an exhibit in the case (or record the objected part of the oral evidence) subject to such objections to be decided at the last stage in the final judgment. If the court finds at the final stage that the objection so raised is sustainable the Judge or Magistrate can keep such evidence excluded from consideration. In our view there is no illegality in adopting such a course. (However, we make it clear