Unregistered documents, mandatorily registrable, cannot be admitted in evidence, even for collateral purposes, if they affect rights in immovable property, reinforcing the necessity of adherence to registration requirements.

ORDER :

NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J.

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the docket order dated 17.06.2019 passed in O.S.No.18 of 2010 by the V Additional District Judge (IIFTC), Warangal at Jangaon, which Court is now functioning as Principal District Judge, Jangaon.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners herein are defendant Nos.2 and 4 in the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs seeking partition and separate possession of the suit schedule house and agricultural properties into four shares and to allot 1/4th share to each plaintiff and to pass a preliminary and final decree by appointing an Advocate Commissioner to effect partition by metes and bounds.

3. Pending the said suit, the matter was posted for chief examination of PW-1 and marking of documents on 17.06.2019, the plaintiffs sought to mark a document dated 13.04.1990, which is an unregistered document styled as a partition/settlement copy. At that stage, the learned counsel for the defendants raised objection to marking of the said document and submitted memo along with citations contending that the said document is an unregistered partition deed-cum-settlement deed, which is compulsorily registrable and cannot be received in evidence even for collateral purpose and that payment of stamp duty would not cure the defect under the Registration Act.

4. The learned Judge, after hearing both the learned counsel, passed the following order:

“The document dated 13.04.1990 clearly shows that it was already partitioned in between Jagannadham and Shankaraiah and as per their possession, the document/resolution passed by the caste elders and it may not be compulsory registrable. It has been collected stamp duty according with law. The objection raised by the counsel for the defendants is over ruled. The document is impounded, hence it is admissible for evidence and it can decided as adjudication.”

5. Being aggrieved by the said docket order dated 17.06.2019, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed on the ground that the learned trial Court exercised jurisdiction in a manner unknown to law and failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and failed to determine the jurisdictional fact as required under law and thereby committed a manifest jurisdictional error.

6. It is further averred that the learned trial Court did not consider the settled principles of law that an unregistered document which is compulsorily registrable, cannot be received in evidence, even for collateral purpose. It is further averred that the mere payment of stamp duty and penalty under Sections 40 and 42 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, would not cure the defect under Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. It is further averred that the learned Judge failed to understand the ambit, scope and purport of Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act and and 49 of the Registration Act, which operate in different fields. It is further averred that the expression “collateral purpose” must be examined in each case and the impugned order ex-facie discloses non-application of mind and abdication of judicial function and is an unreasoned order and therefore is non-est in law. It is further averred that the impugned order is unreasonable, unjust, unfair and irrational and per se illegal and passed without jurisdiction and therefore, liable to be set aside.

7. Heard Sri R.K.Chitta, learned counsel