DANGU @ KADAMENDA YELLAIAH Vs. CH.SRIDHAR REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners filed O.S. No. 152 of 2004 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, against the respondents, for the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction, in respect of the suit schedule property. They placed reliance upon an unregistered sale deed, dated 08.06.1959, said to have been executed by one Mr. Gulam Rasool. The trial of the suit commenced. The petitioners intended to file a Photostat copy of the unregistered deed, dated 08.06.1959. According to them, the original of that document was presented for impounding before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa, (RDO), and after the document was impounded, it was lost in the year 2000. It was pleaded that the Office of the RDO, kept a Photostat copy of the original and on an application filed by them, he issued a certified copy of the document available with him. The same was sought to be filed as secondary evidence by filing I.A. No. 255 of 2009, under Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short 'the Act'). The application was opposed by the respondents. They have pleaded that there is nothing on record to disclose that the RDO impounded the original document, and at any rate, even the original cannot be received in evidence, since it was not registered. The trial Court dismissed the I.A., through order, dated 18.07.2011. Hence, this revision petition. Sri V. Hari Haran, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the certified copy of the unregistered document, dated 08.06.1959, fits into the definition 'secondary evidence', under sub-section (2) of Section 63 of the Act. He contends that when the original document was presented before the RDO for impounding, he kept a Xerox copy thereof, for the purpose of record and since the original was lost by the petitioners, a certified copy of the copy, available with the RDO was furnished. He further submits that the view taken by the trial Court that even the original of the unregistered document cannot be received, cannot be countenanced, since even the unregistered document can be taken on record for collateral purposes.

(2.) The petitioners intended to adduce secondary evidence, of an unregistered sale deed, dated 08.06.1959. It is a certified copy of a copy of an unregistered sale deed. Two aspects assume significance, in this regard. The first is whether the said document, even if filed in original would have been admissible in evidence? (had it been available). The second is whether the document presented by the petitioners can be treated as secondary evidence?

(3.) The suit is filed for the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction. The document sought to be filed is an unregistered sale deed. It is not in dispute that a sale deed in respect of immovable property is required to be registered, under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Section 49 of the Registration Act deals with the effect of non-registration of documents, which are required to be registered. It mandates that such unregistered document cannot be received in evidence. Its proviso carved out an exception to the effect that such documents can be received in evidence, for collateral purposes.