A single bench comprising Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra of the Patna High Court in the case of Saroj Kumar Singh Vs Most. Malti Kuer held that an unregistered agreement to sale is not admissible in the evidence.
Brief Facts:
The factual matrix of the case is that the plaintiff/petitioner filed a title suit seeking a declaration of title and possession over the suit property, as well as a declaration that the registered Beyanama Deed is invalid. They also sought a restraining order against the defendants to prevent them from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession. The written statement was filed by the defendant.
The dispute between the petitioner and the respondent arose when respondent no. 2 told the petitioner that he purchased the property from respondent no. 1. Therefore, the possession should be given to him. Thereafter, the petition was filed by the petitioner to direct respondent No. 1 to give her writing and thumb impression so that they can be compared by the expert with disputed and admitted documents. Another petition was filed to mark the exhibit's non-Survey Knowing Advocate Commissioner report. However, both petitions were dismissed by the lower court.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner contended that the lower court decision deserves to be set aside. It was furthermore contended that the non-survey report Knowing Advocate Commissioner on appointment and getting a report of respondent No. 1's thumb impression from an expert was required for the correct adjudication of the suit and are likely to be approved, and the same shall not cause any prejudice to the respondents.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel for the respondent contended that the unregistered deed (Yadast Kewala) is a fake document and has no meaning in the eyes of the law and therefore requires no examination by the expert.
Observations by the Court:
The Hon’ble Court observed that the Yadast Kewala is an unregistered document, and it is established by law that unregistered sale agreements cannot be used as evidence. Unregistered documents can be used and/or taken into consideration for collateral purposes in a particular situation. However, the verification and examination of the writing and thumb impression of respondent no. 1 on such document are liable to be rejected.
Based on these considerations, the Hon’ble Court supported the decision of the lower court.
The decision of the court:
With the above direction, the Hon’ble Court dismissed the application.
Case Title: Saroj Kumar Singh Vs Most. Malti Kuer
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra
Case No.: Civil Misc. Jurisdiction No. 536 of 2019
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Arvind Nath Pandey, Advocate Mr. Satyendra Pandey, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Viveka Nand Singh, Advocate Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Upadhyay, Advocate
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
