Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kamli vs Iqbal Hussain on 2 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13372
1 MP-1990-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 2 nd OF JULY, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 1990 of 2024
KAMLI AND OTHERS
Versus
IQBAL HUSSAIN
Appearance:
Shri Sameer Kumar Shrivastava - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Prateek Kumar Waghmare - Advocate for respondent appeared through
V.C.
ORDER
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:
"1. A Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or any
direction may kindly be issued to quash the order dated
09.01.2024(Annexure P-1).
2. A Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or any
direction may kindly be issued to quash the order dated 27.03.2024
(Annexure P-2).
3. An appropriate Writ, order or direction may kindly be issued to hold
document Annexure P-6 & Annexure P-7 to be admissible in evidence
or in admissible in evidence.
4. Cost of the petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.
Any other relief which this Hon'ble High Court deem fit in the facts and
circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted."
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned
trial Court vide Annexure P/1 dated 09.01.2024 has admitted the unregistered sale
deed in evidence, which is insufficiently stamped for collateral purposes. The
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13372
2 MP-1990-2024
order is erroneous as Section 49 of the Registration Act clearly debars any
document that is unregistered for admission in evidence. Provision to Section 49
of the Registration Act, 1908, mandates that an unregistered document affecting
immovable property and required by this Act or the Transfer of Property Act,
1882 (4 of 1882), to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a
suit for specific performance under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 (3
of 1877)2, 3[***] or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be
effected by registered instrument. Therefore, an unregistered sale deed cannot be
permitted to be admitted in evidence in a suit for declaration and injunction. In
this regard, he has placed reliance in the cases of Avinash Kumar Chauhan Vs.
Vijay Krishna Mishra reported in [2009 (3) MPLJ, 289, Gordhan Vs. Dinesh
reported in 2017 (4) MPLJ, 565 and Mahendra Kumar Vs. Lal Chand
Vs.Lalchand and another reported in [2019 (3) M.P.L.J. 580.
3. Per contra, learned trial Court erred on behalf of the respondent submits
that the trial Court has rightly passed the order impugned dated 09.01.2024. The
sale deed dated 10.07.1983 can be read for collateral purposes even in absence of
its registration.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the reocrd.
5. Section 49 of the Registration Act in this behalf, which is as under:-
"49. Effect of non-registration of documents required to be registered -
No document required by section 17 (or by any provision of the
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), to be registered shall--
(a) affect any immovable property comprised therein, or
(b) confer any power to adopt, or
(c) be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or
conferring such power,
unless it has been registered:
[provided that an unregistered document affecting immovable property
and required by this Act or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of
1882), to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13372
3 MP-1990-2024
suit for specific performance under Chapter II of the Specific Relief
Act, 1877 (3 of 1877)2, 3[***] or as evidence of any collateral
transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument].
6. Here, in this case, the document is a sale deed which ought to be
compulsorily registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act. Admittedly, the
suit is for purpose of the relief of declaration and injunction in respect of subject
matter property, therefore, the unregistered sale deed dated 10.07.1983 is not
admissible in evidence for any purpose. In this respect, the judgment of co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in Gordhan (supra) is referable. Paragraphs 10 to 12
are relevant which are as under:-
"10 . The Apex Court in the case of Yellapu Uma Maheswari (supra) has held that section
17(1)(b) of the Registration Act mandates that any document which has the effect of
creating and taking away the rights in respect of an immovable property must be registered
and section 49 of the Registration Act imposes bar on the admissibility of an unregistered
document in respect of an immovable property and deals with the documents that are
required to be registered under section 17 of the Act. It is well settled that nomenclature
given to the document is not decisive factor, but the nature and substance of the transaction
has to be determined with respect to the terms of the documents and the admissibility of the
document. In the suit for declaration of title, an unregistered document can be relied upon
for collateral purposes i.e. to prove his possession, payment of sale consideration and nature
of possession, but not for primary purpose i.e. sale between the plaintiff and defendant. As
stated above, the defendant has clearly set out his defence and the claim in the written
statement stating that he has purchased the property by deed dated 1-1-1985 and he wanted
to exhibit as sale deed to get the decree of title.
The defendant has also placed reliance over the judgment cited by the respondent in the
case of K.B. Saha (supra).
11. The Apex Court in the case of K.B. Saha and Sons Private Limited (supra) has laid
down the principle in respect of the collateral purpose. Para 34 of the judgment is
reproduced below:
34. From the principles laid down in the various decisions of this Court and the High
Courts, as referred to hereinabove, it is evident that:--
1. A document required to be registered is not admissible into evidence under section
49 of the Registration Act.
2. Such unregistered document can however be used as an evidence of collateral
purpose as provided in the Proviso to section 49 of the Registration Act.
3. A collateral transaction must be independent of, or divisible from, the transaction
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13372
4 MP-1990-2024
to effect which the law required registration.
4. A collateral transaction must be a transaction not itself required to be effected by a
registered document, that is, a transaction creating, etc. any right, title or interest in
immoveable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards.
5. 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 would not be using it as a collateral purpose.
12. According to the above judgment, a collateral transaction must be a
transaction not itself required to be effected by a registered document. A
collateral transaction must be independent of, or divisible from, the transaction
to effect which required registration by the law. If a document is inadmissible in
evidence for want of registration, none of its terms can be admitted in
evidence."
7. In this regard, the law laid down in case of Avinash Kumar Chauhan (supra)
and Mahendra Kumar (supra ) are also referable.
8. Having regard to the law laid down on aforesaid cases and provisions of
Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, the sale deed dated 10.07.1983
could not be admitted in evidence as it was an unregistered document keeping in
view the relief sought in the suit.
9. Consequently, the impugned order dated 09.01.2024 to the extent admitting
the sale deed dated 10.07.1983 in evidence for collateral purpose is hereby set
aside.
10. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
mani
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13372
5 MP-1990-2024
