ZARIF AHMAD Vs. SATISH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) K. C. Agrawal, J. Finding a conflict between Fateh Chand v. Radha Rani (1956 All LJ 625), and Arsad Ali Khan v. State of U. P. (AIR 1978 All 59), Sallo Mal v. Smt. Nainabai (AIR 1979 All 32), Ram Swarup Jain v. Janki Devi Bhagat (AIR 1974 All 424), Jai Narain Das v. Zubeda Khatoon (AIR 1972 All 494), and Ratan Lal v. Hari Shanker (AIR 1980 All 180), a learned single Judge referred the following two questions for decision by a larger Bench: - "1. Whether any term of a lease deed required under Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act to be registered, could be pressed into service for a collateral purpose within the meaning of the proviso to Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act ?

(2.) WHETHER, in the instant case, the relationship of landlord and tenant, the rate of rent and the period for which the original lease had been granted could be looked into as a collateral purpose under the Proviso to S. 49 of the Indian Registration Act. " 2. The facts, briefly stated, are that the plaintiff Satish Kumar brought Small Cause Court Suit No. 74 of 1972 for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent against three defendants. The plaintiff alleged that the accommodation in suit had been let out to the defendants on his behalf through rent deed Dt. 30th Aug. , 1969, at the rate of Rs. 120/- per month, and as the defendants had not paid the rent, they were liable to eviction. The suit was contested by defendants 1 to 3. They alleged that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between themselves and the plaintiff, and further asserted that the premises had been taken by them on a monthly rent of Rs. 50/- from one Kishan Chand and Buddhu Ram. The trial court decreed the suit, against which the present revision under S. 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act was filed in this Court. In the revision, one of the controversies raised was that the deed, since it was not registered, was not admissible. On this point, as the learned single Judge found a conflict, he referred the two questions, mentioned above.

(3.) FROM the above, it is clear that unregistered document can be into for collateral purposes, which is required to be evidenced or effected a registered document. As to what is collateral purpose, has not been in either the Registration Act or in Transfer of Property Act. For this, reference may be made to the dictionary meanings. In Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, this expression "collateral" has been given the meaning as "accompanying as secondary or subordinate". To the same effect is the meaning given in Black's law Dictionary, Fourth Edition. The meaning according to this dictionary, is "additional or supplementary, co-operating, accompanying as a secondary fact or acting as a secondary agent. Thus, collateral purpose for which a document required to be registered and is not so registered, is only for secondary purpose.