SAILAM BOYAM TARAMMA AND ANOTHER Vs. DEVANAPALLI NARASAIAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is filed by the Plaintiffs against an order of the learned District Munisif, Shadnagar, holding that the document in question is not admissible in evidence.

(2.) The contention raised in the lower Court on behalf of the plaintiffs was that the document could be marked for the collateral purpose of prevailing the possession of the 1st plaintiff over the suit house. On the other hand it was argued on behalf of the defendant that the suit itself was filed for perpetual injunction on the basis of the possession ever the suit house and that it is an admitted fact that the 1st plaintiff is in possession of the suit house on behalf of the defendant and hence there is no necessity to prove the possession of the 1st plaintiff. The lower court raised the point whether the possession of the 1st plaintiff is as the licensee or as the owner of the suit house. The defendant, therefore, contended that the plaintiffs wanted to establish that the 1st plaintiff is in possession of the suit house as the owner which was denied by the defendant. The lower court has not discussed the matter, but stated that:

(3.) The order of the lower Court is intelligible. Why the lower Court held that the document in question is admissible for collateral purpose is clear. It was of the view that the nature of possession is in dispute. If the document is filed for collateral purpose, it is only for proving the possession, but for the enforcement of title. For the enforcement of the title, the document needs registration. Therefore, no suit for enforcement of the title, could be filed OB the basis of an unregistered sale deed. If the sale deed has to be admitted, it has only to be admitted for collateral purpose to show the nature of possession.