AYYAVU DIED Vs. SHANTI BIBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first appellant filed the suit in O.S.No. 687 of 1982 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Bhavani, for declaration and for permanent injunction against one Ghouse Mohideen Sahib, who died pending the suit whose legal representatives are appellants 2 to 5 in S.A.No.209 of 1988, and against Bhavani Municipality.

(2.) ACCORDING to the 1st appellant, the suit property was owned by his father and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same for the past 25 years and thereafter he became entitled to the same. The 1st defendant-municipality had recognised the 1st appellant/plaintiff as the owner of the suit property and assessed property tax in his name and so the said Ghouse Mohideen Sahib 2nd defendant has no right or title or interest in the suit property, but he attempted to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the appellants, as stated above, has mainly relied on the Full Bench decision of this Court in Muruga Mudaliar v. Subba Reddiar, 1950 (II) M.L.J. 818. In the said decision, undoubtedly it is held that so long as the documents are not sought to be relied on as evidence of any right, title or interest to or in immovable property, there is nothing to prevent the documents being received in evidence. In the said decision, the suit was filed for damages for breach of agreement of lease. THE document was rejected by the courts below for want of registration. So, the issue before the Court was whether the Courts below are correct in rejecting the document mentioned for the purpose of claiming damages for breach though it is unregistered as required under Section 17 of the Registration Act. THE Full Bench has ultimately held that the agreement of lease in writing can be used as evidence of the agreement in a suit for damages for its breach, though the document has to be registered, but it is unregistered in that case. While coming to the conclusion, the Full Bench has found that Section 49(c) of the Indian Registration Act prohibits the use of unregistered document in any legal proceedings in which the such document is sought to be relied on in support of the claim to enforce or maintain any right, title or interest to or in immovable property, so long as the document is not sought to be relied on as evidence of any right, title or interest to or immovable property, there is nothing to prevent the document being received in evidence for other purposes. So, in the present case, the respondents are denying the abovesaid documents only for collateral purposes to prove the character of possession and not to enforce the right agreed thereon. So, the said decision cannot be used against the respondents.