E. MEGANATHAN AND ORS. Vs. M. SAMRAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The arguments advanced by Mr. S. Rajendra kumar, learned counsel representing M/s. Norton and Grant, counsel on record for the petitioners are heard. The grounds of revision and the documents produced in the form of typed set of papers are also perused. The petitioners are the defendants in O.S. No. 54 of 2009 pending on the file of the District Munsif, Tiruvallur. The said suit was filed by the respondent herein for demarcation of the suit properties, declaration of title and injunction not to disturb his possession and enjoyment of the same. The petitioners herein, who are the defendants in the suit, are contesting the suit on the basis of their claim that they had purchased the property from the father of the plaintiff. The suit is in the part-heard stage. At this stage, the petitioners herein/defendants filed an application in I.A. No. 2078 of 2014 seeking an order permitting them to mark the document dated 30.04.2002 allegedly executed by the father of the respondent herein/plaintiff, as a documentary evidence on their side.

(2.) Admittedly, the said document is not a registered document. The document has been prepared in a ten rupees stamp paper and it has been titled as a letter written by V.M. Krishnan in favour of the first petitioner herein. It is a well recognised principle of law that the title mentioned in the document is not the sole deciding factor of the nature of the document. The transaction made therein must be looked into to find out what is the nature of the document. In the document, which is sought to be marked on the side of the petitioners herein as a documentary evidence as exhibit, is no doubt titled as a letter. Except the title, the other portion of the document shows that it is only a sale deed of an immovable property, namely the suit property.

(3.) It is not in dispute that the value of the property as on the date of the document itself was more than 100 rupees. As such, the said document is one that requires registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 makes such unregistered documents inadmissible in law in proof of any right said to have been derived under the said document. However, the proviso provides two exceptions, which are as follows: