YELLAPU UMA MAHESWARI &ANR. versus BUDDHA JAGADHEESWARARAO & ORS.

Citation: [2015] 11 S.C.R. 849 · Decided: 08-10-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

(2015] 11 S.C.R. 849 
YELLAPU UMAMAHESWARI &ANR. 
A 
v. 
BUDDHA JAGADHEESWARARAO & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 8441 of 2015) 
B 
OCTOBER 08, 2015 
· [RANJAN GOGOi AND N.V. ~AMANA, JJ.] 
Deeds and Documents: 
r 
Unregistered documents - Admissibility of - In suit of c 
,, 
f 
partition - Defendant introduced Exbt B-21and Exbt B-22 
(Deed of Memorandum witnessing earlier partition and an 
• 
Agreement respectively) - Both the documents were held 
by courts below as not admissible - On appeal, held: s.49 of 
Registration Act imposes a bar on admissibility of an D 
unregistered document which are required to be registered 
u/s. 17 of the Act - Admissibility of a document is entirely 
dependent upon the recitals contained in the document -
The contents of both the documents exhibited by the E 
defendant show that they were compulsorily registerable 
documents uls. 17(i)(b) - Since the documents were not 
registered, were inadmissible in evidence for proving factum 
of partition - Registration Act, 1908 - ss. 17 and 49. 
Unregistered documents - Exhibited in Partition suit-
F 
Whether admissible for collateral purpose - Held: In a suit 
for partition, an unregistered document can be relied upon 
for collateral purpose i.e. severancy of title, nature of 
possession of various shares, but not for primary purpose G 
i.e. division of joint properties by metes and bounds - An 
unstamped instrument is not admissible, even for collateral 
purpose, until the same is impounded -
Hence, the 
unregistered documents, in the present case are admissible 
in evidence for collateral purpose subject to payment of H 
849 
850 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015] 11 S.C.R. 
A 
stamp duty, penalty, proof and relevancy- Stamp Act, 1899. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
.. 
HELD: 1.1 Section 17 (1)(b) of the Registration Act, 
B 1908 mandates that any document which has the effect 
of creating and taking away the rights in respect of an 
immovable property must be registered and Section 49 
of the Act imposes bar on the admissibility of an 
unregistered document and deals with the documents 
c thatare required to be registered u/s 17 of the Act. [Para 
\ 
15] [858-8] . 
, 
I 
1.2 It is well settled that the nomenclature given to 
the document is not decisive factor but the nature and 
4 
D substance of the transaction has to be determined with 
reference to the terms of the documents and that the 
admissibility of a document is entirely dependent upon 
the recitals contained in that document but not on the 
basis of the pleadings set up by the party who seeks to 
E introduce the document in question. A reading of both 
Exhibits 8-21 and 8-22 makes it very clear that there is 
relinquishment of right in respect of immovable property 
through a document which is compulsorily registerable 
document and if the same is not registered, becomes an 
F inadmissible document ~s envisaged under Section 49 
of the Registration Act. Hence, Exhibits 8-21 and 8-22 
are the documents which squarely fall within the ambit 
of section 17 (i) (b) of the Registration Act and hence are 
compulsorily registerable documents and the same are 
G inadmissible in evidence for the purpose of proving the 
factum of partition between the parties. Thus, Exhibits 
8 21 and 822 are not admissible in evidence for the 
purpose of proving primary purpose of partition. [Para 
17] [859-D-H] 
H 
YELLAPU UMA MAHESWARI v. BUDDHA 
851 
JAGADHEESWARARAO 
2. In a suit for partition, an unregistered document A 
can be relied upon for collateral purpose i.e. severancy 
of title, nature of possession of various shares but not 
for the primary purpose i.e. division of joint properties 
by metes and bounds. An unstamped instrument is not 
admissible in evidence even for collateral purpose, until B 
the same is impounded. Hence, if the appellants/ 
defendants want to mark these documents for collateral 
purpose it is open for them to pay the stamp duty 
together with penalty and get the document impounded 
and the Trial Court is at liberty to mark Exhibits B-21 and C 
B-22 for collateral purpose subject to proof and 
relevance. Therefore, Exhibits B-21 and B-22 are 
admissible in evidence for collateral purpose subject to 
payment of stamp duty, penalty, proof and relevancy. D 
[Paras 18 and 19] [860-C-E] 
Chinnappa Reddy Gari Muthya/a Reddy Vs. 
Chinnappa Reddy Gari VankatReddy AIR 1969 
A.P. (242)- referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
AIR 1969A.P. (242) 
referred to. 
Para 18 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JU

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.