Unregistered sale deeds cannot be admitted in evidence for any purpose, including collateral purposes, if they are relied upon to establish title.

O R D E R

This petition has been filed seeking to set aside the order dated

23.09.2021 passed in I.A.No.24 of 2021 in O.S.No.53 of 2011, on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif, Karaikudi.

2.The respondent Nos.1 to 8 / plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.53of 2011 before the learned Additional District Munsif, Karaikudi, seeking declaration and permanent injunction of the suit properties. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner / first defendant filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.21 of 2021 in O.S.No.53 of 2011 under Order 8 Rule 1-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, to receive 7 documents as evidence for collateral purposes. The said application was allowed by the learned Additional District Munsif, Karaikudi, on 07.04.2021. However, only 6 documents came to be marked as Ex.B3 to Ex.B.8. Hence, for marking the left out 1 unregistered document dated 02.06.1997, the petitioner herein filed I.A.No.24 of 2021. The said application came to be dismissed. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that one Rakkappan Ambalam executed an unregistered sale deed dated 02.06.1997 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 and to again examine the petitioner. It is further contended that marking the document for collateral purposes would not cause any prejudice to the respondent Nos.1 to 8 / plaintiffs and that the dismissal of the application is not sustainable in law.

4.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing the respondents would submit that the issue 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 further contended by the learned Counsel for the respondents 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 that arises for consideration in this case is whether the unregistered sale deed sought to be marked can be admitted in evidence for collateral purposes.

7.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 as follows:

“ 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'ble Supreme Court in those judgments has categorically held that in view of Section 35 of the Stamp Act, 1899, the document, which falls under the said provision, shall not be admitted for any purpose whatsoever. This would also include for collateral purpose.

15. In view of the above settled po