K.R. Subrahmanyam And Anr. vs A. Raja Reddy on 7 August, 2002

Andhra High Court
K.R. Subrahmanyam And Anr. vs A. Raja Reddy on 7 August, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002 (5) ALT 404
Author: G Bikshapathy
Bench: G Bikshapathy


G. Bikshapathy, J.

1. This revision petition is filed against the order passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupathi in O.S. No. 181 of 1997 dated 4-3-2001 admitting the document dated 29-10-1973 in evidence for collateral purposes.

2. The petitioners are the defendants. The respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. However, during the course of evidence of the plaintiff, he tried to introduce the document dated 29-10-1973 which is styled as “Bhoomi Vikrayaswadheenapatram”. An objection was taken by the defendants on the ground that it is a compulsorily registrable document and therefore the document cannot be admitted in evidence. The objection was overruled by the impugned order against which the present revision is filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order of the Court below is wholly erroneous inasmuch the relief itself is being claimed on the ground that there was a sale deed dated 29-10-1973 and that document could not be received in evidence as it was not registered. The said document being compulsorily registrable document under Section 17 of the Registration Act, the same ought to have been rejected. The learned counsel tried to rely on the decisions of this Court reported in A. Parvathi v. P. Chanti, Banguru Ramathulasamma v. Yedem Masthan Reddy, Hussain Begum v. Madu Ranga Rao, and the decision of the Patna High Court in Habibur Rahman v. Tetri and submits, (V. 59 C 14) that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent however submits that the suit itself is for permanent injunction and it is only a right in personam and not a right in rem, which is being claimed. Under those circumstances, it is always open for the plaintiff to introduce the document for collateral purposes to establish the possession as it is evident that he is not claiming the right over the property in question for which the document is executed.

5. The issue that arises for consideration is whether the document can be received in evidence for collateral purposes. It is well settled proposition that even though a compulsorily registrable document is pressed into service in evidence, it cannot be received in evidence when the right is claimed out of the said document. But there is no bar to receive the said document for collateral purposes as required under Section 49 of the Indian Evidence Act (sic. Registration Act). In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the document received in evidence is an unregistered document. Even though it cannot be received in evidence for establishing any right or title, there is no impediment for receiving the same for collateral purposes. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners submit that to establish the possession, when the plaintiff is trying to introduce the document, in such an event, the document must be a document which could be received under the provisions of the Evidence Act. This contention though appears to be appealing at the first Hush, it cannot be sustained on a closer scrutiny of the contention. The relief claimed is the relevant criteria for deciding the nature of the document i.e., whether it is for collateral purposes or to establish a right under the document. Admittedly, the document dated 29-10-1973 is a document of sale but it is an unregistered document. But that will not make any effect in the eye of law inasmuch as it is being sought to be received for collateral purposes and it is not a suit for title wherein the right can be claimed against the entire world i.e., right in rem. But it is purely a right in personam as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent. Under those circumstances, receiving the document for collateral purposes cannot be said to be illegal or contrary to law. The judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners will not in any way assist them inasmuch as what is claimed in the instant case is the right in personam and for establishing that right, it need not be insisted that the document should be registered. Under those circumstances, the decisions will not be of any assistance to the petitioners. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. No costs.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *