K RAMAMOORTHI Vs. C SURENDRANATHA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question, which quite often vexes the Bar and the Bench alike, arises in this case. The question is whether the unregistered sale deed dated 23.01.1976 sought to be produced by the plaintiff in evidence in a suit for permanent injunction could be marked for a "collateral purposes"? The lower Court has sustained the objection raised by the defendant that as the sale deed pertains to an immovable property, which requires compulsory registration, and the same is not registered, it cannot be admitted in evidence even for the purpose of proving the plaintiff's possession.Before delving into the legal position governing the issue, it is necessary to briefly refer to the facts of the case. The petitioner herein filed O.S.No.169 of 2005 for permanent injunction restraining the respondent herein and the persons claiming through him from interfering with his peaceful possession of the plaint schedule property comprising Ac.0.20 cents or 0.081 hectares out of Ac.1.87 cents in survey No.649/1 of Chittoor Municipality. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that his brother K. Gopalan was the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property, that out of love and affection towards him, his brother has gifted the plaint schedule property to him on 22.02.2001 under a registered gift settlement deed, that on the date of execution of the gift settlement deed, his brother has inducted him in possession, that since then he has been in continuous possession of the same, and that as the respondent sought to interfere with his possession, he has filed the suit.

(2.) The respondent has filed O.S.No.287 of 2004 in the Court of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the petitioner. On a transfer application, both these suits were clubbed together for disposal by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor. The said suit filed by the respondent is mainly based on the registered sale deed dated 30.11.2004 executed by the wife and children of Balasubrahmanyam Pillai in favour of the respondent.

(3.) During the trial, the petitioner sought to produce the above-mentioned unregistered sale deed dated 23.01.1976 stated to have been executed by Balasubrahmanyam Pillai in favour of K. Gopalan, the brother of the petitioner who executed Ex.A.1-gift deed in favour of the petitioner. As the said sale deed was neither properly stamped nor registered, the petitioner got the same impounded by paying the stamp duty and penalty. The schedule property in O.S.No.169 of 2005 forms part of the schedule property in O.S.No.287 of 2004. The petitioner sought to mark the impounded but unregistered sale deed dated 23.01.1976 for a purported collateral purpose, namely, to prove possession of the property. But the Court below declined permission to mark the document. The reason assigned by the lower Court for this refusal is that if the respondent, who filed O.S.No.287 of 2004, succeeds in getting his title declared, the petitioner will not be entitled for the grant of permanent injunction and that, therefore, the unregistered sale deed cannot be marked. The lower Court further reasoned that since the sale Deed is compulsorily registerable as per Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, the same is not admissible in evidence even though it is impounded. The lower Court cited the judgment in Rayadurgam Pedda Reddeppa (died) and others v. Rayadurgam Narasimha Reddy (died) and others, 2006 6 ALT 292. It needs to be observed that the lower Court has not dealt with the issue as it ought to have. It has not undertaken any discussion as to whether the document cannot be admitted into evidence for a collateral purpose if not for proving the title. Therefore, I would like to examine these aspects. Before adverting to the case law, I would like to give a brief prelude to the issue. The plain dictionary meaning of the phrase "collateral" is "additional but subordinate, secondary" (Oxford Dictionary, Thesaurus & Word Power Guide, Indian Edition 2007). An area which often creates a doubt is whether the word "collateral" should be applied qua the transaction or the relief claimed in the suit? The proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act makes it evident that it is only with reference to the transaction affecting the immovable property. For example, in a suit for injunction, the main purpose is to prove possession. The possession in a sale deed is collateral to the transaction. The case law discussed below would show that the phrase 'collateral purpose' is qua the transaction and not with reference to the relief claimed in the suit. Equally important area where the Courts often face the problem is in understanding the purport of the phrases 'collateral transaction' and 'collateral purpose'. The spate of precedents on the above aspects for almost a century notwithstanding, the difficulty for the Courts to understand the true purport of these aspects is continuing. In this context, I would like to recall the statement of Davis C.J. In Radhomal Alumal v K.B. Allah Baksh Khan Haji Muhammad Umar and another (29) AIR(1942) Sind 27 herein below: