LexKORUKONDA CHALAPATHI RAO & ANR. versus KORUKONDA ANNAPURNA SAMPATH KUMAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 836 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 11 S.C.R. [2021] 11 S.C.R. 836 836 KORUKONDA CHALAPATHI RAO & ANR. v. KORUKONDA ANNAPURNA SAMPATH KUMAR (Civil Appeal No(s). 6141 of 2021) OCTOBER 01, 2021 [K. M. JOSEPH AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.] Registration Act, 1908 – ss. 17(1)(b), 49 – Partition – Family Settlement, if required registration – Suit filed by respondent inter alia for declaration of title over the plaint schedule property and eviction of the appellants – Appellants filed the evidence affidavit and sought to mark Kharurunama - the family settlement and a receipt, allowed by trial court – High Court held that the documents being unregistered and unstamped were inadmissible in evidence – On appeal, held: Words used in the document referred to the arrangements allegedly which the parties made in the past – It does not purport to by itself create, declare, assign, extinguish or limit right in properties and thus, the Khararunama may not attract s.49(1)(a) – If the Khararunama by itself, does not ‘affect’ immovable property, being a record of the alleged past transaction, though relating to immovable property, there would be no breach of s.49(1)(c), as it is not being used as evidence of a transaction effecting such property – Being let in evidence is different from being used as evidence of the transaction – Mere admission, in evidence of the Khararunama and the receipt would not produce any legal effect on the immovable properties in question – Further, in view of the nature of the Khararunama, being record of the alleged transactions, it may not require to be stamped – Impugned judgment set aside – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.13, rr.3, 4 – Deeds and Documents. Registration Act, 1908 – Proviso to s.49, exceptions under – Discussed. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 Section 49 deals with the effect of non- registration of documents which are compulsorily registrable under Section 17 of the Registration Act and Transfer of Property A B C D E F G H 837 Act. Section 49(a) of the Registration Act declares that an unregistered document which is compulsorily registrable cannot ‘affect’ any immovable property comprised therein. Section 49(c) of Registration Act prohibits the admitting of compulsorily registrable documents which are unregistered as evidence of any transaction affecting immovable property unless it has been registered. The proviso carves out two exceptions. This Court is only concerned, in this case, with only one of them and that is contained in the last limb of the proviso. The unregistered document can be used as evidence of any collateral transaction. This is however subject to the condition that the said collateral transaction should not itself be one which must be effected by a registered document. What would constitute a collateral transaction? If it were collateral transaction, then an unregistered document can indeed be used as evidence to prove the same. Would possession being enjoyed or the nature of the possession on the basis of the unregistered document, be a transaction and further would it be a collateral transaction? This question is posed as the contention of the appellants is that even if the Khararunama dated 15.4.1986 cannot be used as evidence to prove the factum of relinquishment of right which took place in the past, the Khararunama can be looked into to prove the conduct of the parties and the nature of the possession which was enjoyed by the parties. The law is not that in every case where a party sets up the plea that the court may look into an unregistered documents to show the nature of the possession that the court would agree to it. The cardinal principle would be whether by allowing the case of the party to consider an unregistered document it would result in the breach of the mandate of the Section 49 of the Registration Act. [Paras 24-26, 29][851-B-C, E-F; 852-B-E; 853-G-H; 854-A] 1.2 If this Court applies the test as to whether the Khararunama in this case by itself ‘affects’, i.e., by itself creates, declares, limits or extinguishes rights in the immovable properties in question or whether it merely refers to what the appellants alleged were past transactions which have been entered into by the parties, then, going by the words used in the document, they indicate that the words are intended to refer to the arrangements allegedly KORUKONDA CHALAPATHI RAO v. KORUKONDA ANNAPURNA SAMPATH KUMAR A B C D E F G H 838 SUPREM
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.