S. Kaladevi vs V. R. Somasundaram & Others - 2008 Supreme(Mad) 4144 - Supreme Today AI

Advocates Appeared :
For the Petitioner : N. Manoharn, Advocate.
For the Respondents : ----

Judgment :-

Parallel Paragraph The civil revision petitioner/petitioner/plaintiff has filed this revision petition as against the order dated 112. 2007 in regard to the marking of plaint first document viz., the unregistered sale deed dated 27.02.2006 in O.S.No.17 of 2007 passed by the Principal Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam.

Parallel Paragraph 2. The trial Court, in its order dated 112. 007, has inter alia opined that the unregistered sale deed dated 27.02.2006 being the first item of document mentioned in the plaint is not a one to be marked.

Parallel Paragraph .3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/ plaintiff contends that the document has been sufficiently stamped but the same has not been registered and this fact has not been taken note of by the trial Court and further that the procedure of deciding the admissibility of a document in the interlocutory stage has been deprecated in various decisions and that the trial Court has not taken into account of the fact that the respondents have entered into an oral sale agreement on 27.02.2006 agreeing to sell their property for a sum of Rs.1,83,000/-and after receiving the entire amount, arrangements were made to register the sale deed on the same day and that a sale deed was made ready and all the parties were present before the Sub Registrar Office, Punjaipuliyampatti and the Registrar has refused to register it on the ground that there was an order of attachment over the properties as per the order made in I.A.No.346 of 2004 in O.S.NO.234 of 2004 and the said issue has been settled amicably, but the respondents took a different stand and has refused to register the sale deed and there is no legal impediment to mark the document for a collateral purpose and therefore, prays for allowing the revision petition in the interest of justice.

Parallel Paragraph .4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner relies on the decision in Bipin Shantilal Panchal V. State of Gujarat and another (2001) 3 SCC 1 ) wherein the Honble Supreme Court has observed that it is an archaic practice that during the evidence-collecting stage, whenever any objection is raised regarding admissibility of any material in evidence the court does not proceed further without passing order on such objection. Such practices when realized through the course of long period to be hindrances which impede steady and swift progress of trial proceedings must be recast or remoulded to give way for better substitutes which would help acceleration of trial proceedings. He also cites the decision in Bondar Singh and others V. Nihal Singh and others (2003) 4 SCC 161 ) wherein the Honble Court has observed as follows:

Parallel Paragraph .Under the law a sale deed is required to be properly stamped and registered before it can convey title to the vendee. However, legal position is clear that a document like the sale deed in the present case, even though not admissible in evidence, can be looked into for collateral purposes. In the present case the collateral purpose to be seen is the nature of possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land.

Parallel Paragraph 5. Yet another decision in Venugopal alias Alagarsamy (died) and others V. Bajanai Alagarsamy and another (2004) 3 M.L.J. 362 at page 363) wherein this Court has observed that validity unregistered documents inadmissible in evidence but may be considered for collateral purpose.

Parallel Paragraph 6. It is well settled that the pivotal question whether a document is admissible in evidence or not depends upon the nature and contents of the documents and also the facts and circumstances of each case, in the considered opinion of this Court. However, the moot question to be considered is whether the document by itself creates or extinguishes rights in immovable property worth more than Rs.100/-. In finding out the true nature of document, the contextual facts will also be borne in mind.

Parallel Paragraph .7. At this stage, this Court points out that in the decision K.B. Saha & Sons Private Limited V. Development Consultant Limited (2008 (5) CTC 260) wherein the Honble Supreme Court has inter alia observed that a collateral transaction should be one which does not create, extinguish title, interest, right or interest etc. in immovable property and once the document cannot be admitted in evidence for want of registration any important clause in such document cannot be used for collateral purpose etc. Moreover, if a document is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration, none of its terms can be admitted in evidence and that to use a document for the purpose of proving an important clause will not be using it as a collateral purpose, in the considered opinion of this Court. In as much as the unregistered sale deed dated 27.02.2006 cannot be admitted in evidence for want of registration the contents of the said document cannot be employed for any collateral purpose and in that view of the matter, the order passed by the trial Court in refusing to mark the aforesaid document as exhibit is perfectly valid in law and viewed in that perspective, the civil revision petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

Parallel Paragraph 8. For the foregoing reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The order passed by the trial Court dated 112. 2007 in refusing to mark the unregistered sale deed dated 27.02.2006 as exhibit is affirmed by this Court for the reasons assigned in this revision. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.