Telangana High Court
Mrs. Asma Mahmood Quadri vs Smt. Zakia Rafath Sultana on 4 April, 2024
HON'BLE JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
C.RP.No.725 of 2023
Between:
Asma Mahmood Quadri,
W/o Syed Mehamood Quadri
... Petitioner
And
Zakia Rafath Sultana,
W/o Syed Misbha Uddin and 12 others.
... Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON 08.04.2024
HON'BLE JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes/No
may be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes/No
3. Whether her Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes/No
2
LNA, J
CRP.No.725 of 2023
HON'BLE JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
Tr.C.M.P.No.504 of 2023
% 08.04.2024
Between:
# Asma Mahmood Quadri,
W/o Syed Mehamood Quadri
..... Petitioner
And:
$ Zakia Rafath Sultana,
W/o Syed Misbha Uddin and 12 others.
....Respondents
< Gist:
> Head Note:
! Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Madiraju Prabhakar Rao
^ Counsel for Respondent: Sri T.Bala Mohan Reddy
? Cases Referred:
1. 2019 SCC Online TS 2059
2. (2003) 4 SCC 161
3. 2008(8) SCC 564
4. 2010 SCC Online AP 939
5. 2009 SCC Online AP 436
6. 2010 SCC Online AP 350
7. (1969) I UJ 86 (SC)
8. (2015) 16 SCC 787
3
LNA, J
CRP.No.725 of 2023
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
CIVIL REVISION PETITON No.725 of 2023
ORDER:
Heard Sri S.Ganesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Sri Ali Faraz Farooqui, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused
the material available on record.
2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the
docket order, dated 14.02.2023, passed by the II Additional Senior
Civil Court, Ranga Reddy District in O.S.No.337 of 2007.
3. By the impugned order, the trial Court declined to mark the
agreement, dated 22.11.1986, executed by the Postal Employees
Co-Operative a Construction Society which was validated by the
District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District, as exhibit on behalf of
defendant No.5, on the ground that sale deed must be compulsorily
registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act.
4. The subject suit was filed seeking to declare the plaintiff as
the sole and absolute lawful owner of the suit schedule property
and consequently, to direct the defendants, their men, etc., to
vacate and hand over the vacant physical possession of the suit
schedule property to the plaintiff; for the relief of perpetual
LNA, J
injunction restraining the defendants, their employees, men, etc.,
from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the suit schedule property and for mesne profits.
5. As per the proviso to Section 49 of Registration Act,
collateral purpose implies that content of such a document can be
used for purpose other than for which it has been executed or
entered into by the parties or for a purpose remote to the main
transaction.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the District
Registrar validated the document by collecting the deficit stamp
duty and once document is validated, the same is admissible under
Section 42(2) of the Stamps Act; and that the said document was
obtained under the Right to Information Act and therefore, the
same should have been admitted under Section 65 of the Indian
Evidence Act. He further contended that the said document can be
looked for collateral purpose of proving the possession of the
plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property.
7. To buttress his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner
relied upon the decisions of this Court in Smt Kamala Devi &
LNA, J
Others Vs. Y. Anita Reddy & Others 1 and M. Narayana Reddy
(died) & Ors. v. M. Janga Reddy (C.R.P.No.566 of 2018, dated
21.12.2018).
8. In Kamala Devi's case (1st cited supra), this Court at Para 15
placed reliance on Bondar Singh v. Nihal Singh 2, wherein it was
held that that a document like a sale deed in the present case, even
though not admissible in evidence, can be looked into as collateral
purpose and in the said case, collateral purpose is the nature of
possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land and it shows the
initial possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land was not illegal
and not unauthorized.
8.1. It was further held in Para 17 as under:-
"An unregistered sale deed is admissible for collateral
purpose to the limited extent of showing possession of
plaintiff and that in a document of sale, possession is
treated as collateral to the main transaction affecting
the immovable property."
8.2. Further, in Para 19 reliance was placed on K.B. Saha &
Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Development Consultant Ltd. {2008 (8) SCC
564}, wherein it was held that a document required to be registered
2019 SCC Online TS 2059
(2003) 4 SCC 161
LNA, J
will not be admissible in evidence if the same is not registered and
however, the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act provides
that such unregistered document can however be used as evidence
of collateral purpose and the said collateral transaction must be
independent of, or divisible from the transaction to the effect which
the law required registration.
8.3. Ultimately, at para 22, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
permitted the petitioners to mark the documents in evidence not for
the purpose of proving their acquisition of title of the suit schedule
property under the sale deeds, but only to the limited extent of
showing their possession/nature/character of possession which are
collateral to the sale transaction.
9. In the case of M.Narayana Reddy (died) & Others, this
Court held as under:-
"When the Tahsildar collected stamp duty and
registration fee and validated the simple sale deed under
Section 5A of the ROR Act, the admissibility of the copy
of it on the ground that it was insufficiently stamped is
impermissible since the petitioner established payment of
stamp duty and registration fee under Section 5A of ROR
Act, by producing satisfactory evidence."
9.1. It was further held in Para 25 as under:-
LNA, J
"When the document is validated by collecting stamp duty
and registration fee, it is deemed to be a registered
document in view of Section 5A of the Act. Therefore, the
original is admissible in evidence and when the original
is admissible in evidence, the true Copy is also
admissible in evidence."
10. Learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the
decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in K.B.Saha & Sons Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. M/s Development Consultant Ltd 3, G.Uday Kiran Reddy Vs.
G. Ramakrishna Reddy 4, Sankuratri Veera Venkata Naga
Mohan Raghavadevi Vs. Vedulla Anjaneyulu and others 5,
Bhaskar Rao Vs. K.A. Rama Rao 6.
11. In K.B.Saha's case (3rd cited supra), the Hon'ble Apex
Court at Para 33 placed reliance on the judgment rendered in Rana
Vidya Bhushan Singh v. Ratiram 7 wherein it was held that a
document required by law to be registered, if unregistered, is
inadmissible as evidence of a transaction affecting immovable
property, but it may be admitted as evidence of collateral facts, or
for any collateral purpose, that is for any purpose other than that of
2008 (8) SCC 564
2010 SCC Online AP 939
2009 SCC OnLine AP 436
2010 SCC Online AP 350
(1969) 1 UJ 86 (SC)
LNA, J
creating, declaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing a right to
immovable property.
12. Further, various High Courts and Supreme Court have held
that a document which requires registration under Section 17 of the
Registration Act and which is not admissible for want of
registration to prove a gift or mortgage or sale or lease is
nevertheless admissible to prove the character of the possession of
the person who holds under it.
13. In G.Uday Kiran Reddy's case (4th cited supra), the High
Court of Andhra Pradesh in Para 4 observed that the law is fairly
well-settled that if a document, by itself, brings about severance of
status, it is liable to be registered, under Section 17 of the Indian
Registration Act (for short 'the Act'). On the other hand, if it
simply contains recitals about what has already taken place, it
partakes the character of notes of partition, or list of partition, and
thereby, not required to be registered."
13.1. It was further held at Para 6 as under:-
"The second aspect is, as to the admissibility. Proviso
to Section 49 of the Act carves out an exception, as to
the admissibility of the unregistered documents, which
are otherwise required to be registered. One such
LNA, J
exception is, when a document is sought to be relied
upon, for collateral purposes. A purpose would be
collateral, if it is other than the one, which the document
itself serves. For instance, if the document is a sale
deed, any purpose, which is other than the sale itself,
can be treated as collateral."
14. In Bhaskar Rao's case (6th cited supra), the High Court of
Andhra Pradesh in Para 21 held that Xerox copies of the
documents are certified as true copies under the Right to
Information Act and True copies cannot, therefore, be equated to
certified copies under the Evidence Act. Hence, it is not applicable
to the present case.
15. From the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
and various High Courts, it can be discerned that the law is well
settled that an unregistered sale deed can be admissible in evidence
only for collateral purpose to the extent of showing possession in
respect to subject property or any other purpose which must be
other than acquisition of title of property.
16. In the instant case, the trial Court observed that since the
agreement dated 22.11.1986 is unregistered, it is not admissible in
evidence and accordingly, declined to mark the said document.
LNA, J
17. The subject suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking to declare
the plaintiff as the sole and absolute lawful owner of the suit
schedule property and consequently, to direct the defendants, their
men, etc., to vacate and hand over the vacant physical possession
of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff. During the course of
trial in the said suit, the plaintiff sought to mark the unregistered
agreement dated 22.11.1986, which was duly validated by the
District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District, by collecting deficit
stamp duty.
18. A purpose would be collateral, if it is other than the one,
which the document itself serves. For instance, if the document is a
sale deed, any purpose, which is other than the sale, can be treated
as collateral.
19. Also, in Yellapu Uma Maheswari & Anr. v. Buddha
Jagadheeswara Rao & Ors 8, the Hon'ble Supreme Court at para
15 held as under:-
"It is well settled that the nomenclature given to the
document is not decisive factor, but the nature and
substance of the transaction has to be determined with
reference to the terms of the documents and that the
(2015) 16 SCC 787
LNA, J
admissibility of a document is entirely dependent upon
the recitals contained in that document, but not on the
basis of the pleadings set up by the party who seeks to
introduce the document in question.
A thorough reading of both Exs.B-21 and B-22
makes it very clear that there is relinquishment of right
in respect of immovable property through a document
which is compulsorily registerable document and if the
same is not registered, it becomes an inadmissible
document as envisaged under Section 49 of the
Registration Act. Hence, Exs.B-21 and B-22 are the
documents which squarely fall within the ambit of
Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act and hence, are
compulsorily registerable documents and the same are
inadmissible in evidence for the purpose of proving the
factum of partition between the parties. We are of the
considered opinion that Exs.B-21 and B-22 are not
admissible in evidence for the purpose of proving
primary purpose of partition."
20. Such being the legal position, the unregistered agreement
dated 22.11.1986, can be used for collateral purpose other than that
of creating, declaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing a right
to the suit schedule property. In other words, the said unregistered
document can be used for the collateral purpose to the limited
LNA, J
extent of showing possession/nature/character of possession of the
plaintiff over the suit schedule property.
21. In the instant case, the plaintiff sought for eviction of the
defendant and to hand over vacant possession of the suit schedule
property. Thus, it is evident that as on the date of filing of the suit,
the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit schedule property.
The document sought to be marked by the plaintiff is an
unregistered agreement under which the plaintiff is claiming title,
therefore, the said document is registerable under Section 17 of the
Registration Act.
22. Section 49 of the Registration Act reads as under:-
"Effect of non-registration of documents required to be
registered.
No document required by Section-17 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."
23. In view of above discussion and analysis, and also in the
light of bar under Section 49 of the Registration Act, non-
LNA, J
registration of a document, which is required to be registered under
Section 17 of the Registration Act, does not confer any power and
cannot be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such
property or conferring such power, unless it has been registered.
Therefore, the unregistered agreement dated 22.11.1986 cannot be
used even for the collateral purpose of proving the possession of
the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property.
25. For the foregoing reasons, discussion and the legal position,
this Court is of the considered view that the trial Court has not
committed any illegality, irregularity or infirmity in declining to
admit the unregistered agreement dated 22.11.1986 in evidence.
26. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No
costs.
27. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
__________________________________
JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
Date:04.04.2024
Note:LR copy to be marked.
B/o
dr
