ST MARYS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY Vs. QUTUBUDDIN AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants 1 to 3 in O.S.No. 610 of 1997 on the file of II Senior Civil Judge, Hyderabad, filed this revision petition questioning the order dated 25th September, 2001, relating to admission of certain documents as evidence during the course of trial. The parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

(2.) For better and proper appreciation of the dispute to be resolved in this revision petition, necessary facts are as follows: Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the owners of plaint schedule property. As per the averments in the plaint, defendants took plaint schedule property on rent from the plaintiffs as per the terms of the lease deed-cum-general agreement dated 11-8-1986 and later lease deed dated 2-10-1987 for the purpose of running a Junior College under the name and style of St. Mary's Junior College run by defendant No.1 Society. Plaintiffs agreed to permit defendants 1 and 2 to carry out additional construction of rooms and halls at their own cost in the open space with the permission of plaintiffs in writing. Rent of Rs. 7,000=00 per month with effect from 2-10-1987 was agreed to between the parties. The period of lease was 15 years. It was agreed that defendant No.l shall not sublet the premises or any part thereof or take partners or carry on other business except for the aforesaid college under any circumstances. The defendant No.l entered into a deed of extension of lease on 1-6-1992 with the plaintiffs. The lessee had advanced to the lessor a sum of Rs. 1,00,000=00 on 7-3-1992 and later another sum of Rs. 5,00,000=00. Alleging that the defendants 1 to 3 have illegally sublet a portion of the premises and committed some other breaches of the contract, the plaintiffs filed the suit seeking the main relief, namely, delivery of vacant possession of plaint schedule property to the plaintiffs. This Court is not concerned in this revision petition with other reliefs prayed for in the plaint and the other averments made in the plaint. This court is also not concerned now with the various pleas taken by the defendants in their written statements opposing the suit.

(3.) Plaintiff No.l was examined as P.W.I as one of the witnesses on behalf of the plaintiffs. During the course of the evidence, the defendants wanted to exhibit some documents as evidence on their behalf. The plaintiffs opposed marking of those documents. The learned Senior Civil Judge upheld the objections made by the plaintiffs and held that in view of the provisions of Section 107 of Transfer of Property Act, Sections 17 and 49 of Registration Act, the three unregistered lease deeds cannot be admitted in evidence even for collateral purpose invoking the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, as terms of the lease are not for collateral purpose within its meaning. He held categorically that the unregistered lease deeds dated 11-8-1986, 2-10-1997 and 1-6-1992 cannot be admitted in evidence. Aggrieved by that order dated 25th September, 2001, this revision petition is filed.