CUSTOM SEARCH

TOPICS AVAILABLE IN THIS BLOG

AT THE TIME OF FINAL HEARING COURT SHALL DECIDE WHETHER THE SAID DOCUMENT COULD BE LOOKED INTO FOR COLLATERAL PURPOSES

Justice N.Kumar in the case of K. Anjaneya Setty vs K.H. Rangiah Setty AIR 2002 Kant 387, ILR 2002 KAR 3613, 2002 (4) KarLJ 551 Though Section 49 of the Registration Act prohibits receiving as evidence the documents requiring registration under Section 17 which are compulsorily registerable the proviso to the said section provides for receiving such documents in the circumstances narrated therein. Therefore, it is clear there is no total prohibition for receiving unregistered documents in evidence and it is settled law that an unregistered partition deed could be received in evidence to prove any collateral transaction. Therefore, even though an unregistered document is marked that in no way affects the interest of the parties. Mere marking of the document does not take away the right of the opposite party to contend that such a document cannot be relied upon as it is not registered. Similarly, when the law declares for collateral purposes an unregistered document could be looked into it makes clear that such a document could be marked. Under these circumstances, the proper course for the Courts would be to mark such documents, subject to objections, permit the parties to adduce evidence, instead of putting questions to the lawyers at the time of argument to state for what purpose they are relying on the said document. Thereafter consider the respective contentions at the time of final hearing and then decide whether the said document could be looked into for collateral purposes and whether non-registration of the said document has made it inadmissible in evidence. Therefore, the approach of the Court below cannot be sustained.

No comments:

KARNATAKA LAND LAWS