Unregistered sale deeds cannot be admitted in evidence, even for collateral purposes, if intended to prove title, per established legal principles.

ORDER

This petition has been filed seeking orders to set aside the docket order passed in O.S.No.211 of 2014, dated 08.01.2020, by the learned District Munsif, Srivaikundam.

2. The respondent Nos.1 to 4 / plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.211 of

2014 before the learned District Munsif, Srivaikundam, seeking declaration, redemption of mortgage, and recovery of possession of the suit property. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner / first defendant filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No.211 of 2014 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to receive an unregistered sale deed as evidence for collateral purposes. The said application was allowed by the learned District Munsif, Srivaikundam, on 04.07.2019. Challenging the docket order subsequently passed by the learned District Munsif on 08.01.2020, the petitioner has filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that respondent Nos.1 to 4 / plaintiffs' maternal grandfather, viz., Subbiah Thevar, executed a registered mortgage deed dated 19.02.1987 in favour of the petitioner and received a sum of Rs.4,000/- as consideration. After his demise, his daughter inherited the property, and upon her death, the respondent Nos.1 to 4 / plaintiffs became the owners of the suit property. It was further contended that the mortgage deed stipulated that, in the event of non-redemption within three years, the ownership of the property would automatically vest with the mortgagee, namely, the petitioner. Based on this, the petitioner claims ownership over the property.

3.(i). It is also stated that Subbiah Thevar subsequently executed an unregistered sale deed dated 05.01.1990 in favour of the petitioner, which could not be marked earlier. Hence, the present application was filed to receive the said document in evidence for collateral purposes. It is contended that marking the document for collateral purposes would not cause any prejudice to the respondent Nos.1 to 4 / plaintiffs and that the dismissal of the application is not sustainable in law.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing the respondents 1 to 4 would submit that the issue arose in this Civil Revision Petition is no longer res integra, and is squarely covered by the decisions of this Court in the case of Thangamuthu and Others vs. A. Jeyaraj reported in 2019 (4) L.W. 602, and in the case of M.Ahamed Jesimabanu and Another vs. A. Mohamed Maideen and Others , reported in 2025 (2) L.W. 309.

5. It was contended that an unregistered sale deed is inadmissible in evidence under the Registration Act and the Indian Stamp Act , and cannot be admitted even for collateral purposes if the purpose of production is to prove title.

6. The main issue arising in this case is whether the unregistered sale deed sought to be marked can be admitted in evidence for collateral purposes.

7.(i). Useful reference can be made to the decision of this Court in the case of Thangamuthu and Others vs. A. Jeyaraj , cited supra, wherein this Court has held:

“ 12. It is clear from the judgments that have been cited on the side of the petitioners that a document, which is compulsorily registrable under the Registration Act , cannot be admitted in evidence, unless, it is registered. If a document is inherently bad for non-registration, it cannot be cured by paying deficit stamp duty and penalty. It is even a settled position of law that such documents cannot be looked into even for collateral purposes. 13. It is not necessary to extract all the judgments cited by the learned counsel appearing on either side, since the law is well settled in this regard.

14. The judgments that have been cited by the learned counsel for the respondent may not come to his aid, since the Hon'