KHIVRAJ MOTORS, A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM DULY REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS MR. GANESH HEGDE S/O SRI GANAPPAYA HEGDE, BUSINESS MANAGER AND OTHERS Vs. SMT. SATHYA D. SAMPATH W/O SRI D. SAMPATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS are defendants in the Trial Court. They are challenging the order dated 12.03.2010 passed by the Trial Court holding that the xerox copy of the unregistered lease agreement confronted to PW -1 in the course of cross -examination was not admissible in evidence and therefore, could not be permitted to be marked.

(2.) RESPONDENTS herein filed a suit for ejectment of the petitioners from the suit schedule property contending that the petitioners were occupying the premises as tenants.' There is no registered agreement of lease between the parties. Plaintiff tendered her evidence. During the course of cross -examination. PW -1 was asked about the existence of any written lease agreement to which PW -1 denied stating that no such lease deed was in existence. At that stage, PW -1 was confronted with the xerox copy of the unregistered lease agreement dated 01.10,2002 and asked the witness as to whether the said agreement was the one under which tenancy in favour of the defendant commenced. The witness admitted that there was such a lease agreement, and contended that the period under the said lease had expired. At this stage, learned Counsel for the defendant requested the court to mark the document in evidence as exhibit as the witness had admitted the same. This was opposed by the other side, contending that the document was only a photocopy, and was an unregistered document which the learned Counsel on: the point and has held that the document could not be marked in evidence as it was a photocopy and was an unregistered document not bearing requisite stamp duty. Aggrieved by this order, the present writ petition is filed.

(3.) TAKING support from the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of T. Mohan v. Kannammal And Anr. ILR 2003 KAR 3533, learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that in the absence of the original document, copy of the agreement which was nothing but a duplicate of the original could have been received as secondary evidence in the case as PW 1 had admitted the said document. It is necessary at this stage to observe that in the aforementioned case, the question regarding compulsory registration of the document, a duplicate of which was sought to be produced and marked on the ground that the witness had admitted the signatures on the document did not arise. Learned Counsel further draws the attention of the Court to the observation made in para 12 of the decision in the case of Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat and Anr. AIR 2001 SC 1158, to contend that in matters where any objection is raised regarding admissibility of any material in evidence, the better course is that keeping open the objection, the material could be admitted in evidence so as to avoid delay and to facilitate the appellate court to have the benefit of the document which would be otherwise discarded if the objections were to be gone into at the stage of tendering the document itself. He further submits that the Trial Court ought to have allowed the document to be marked subject to objection. Learned Counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to paragraphs 18 and 30 of the judgment in K. Anjaneya Setty Vs. K.H. Rangiah Setty, AIR 2002 Kant 387 , to contend that there is no total prohibition for receiving unregistered document in evidence. It is held in the said case that unregistered partition deed could be received in evidence to prove any collateral transaction. Thus, the main crux of the argument is that regardless of whether it is a xerox copy or an unregistered document, the Court below ought to have admitted the document subject to objection.