CRP(MD)/410/2025 of M/s.Ajmeer Kaja and Co. Vs A.C.N.Devaraj on 25 September 2026

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 05/12/2024 passed by the learned Trial Court, refusing to receive and mark the document, dated 15/03/1991, which is alleged to be a lease agreement entered into between the parties.

2. The respondent is the Landlord and the petitioners are the Tenants under the respondent. The respondent/Landlord filed R.C.O.P No.25 of 2003 seeking eviction of the petitioners and a direction to them to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the demised premises to the Landlord, without any let or hindrance, together with costs.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that at the time of entering into the lease arrangement, the subject matter was only a vacant site and therefore, the Rent Control Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute in respect of the said vacant site. It is further contended that the petitioners and the respondent/Landlord had orally agreed to lease out the vacant site to the petitioners and that subsequently, the document, dated 15/03/1991 was executed in confirmation of the oral agreement already entered into between the parties. The petitioners further contended that they had filed O.S.No. 1233 of 2004 against the respondent/Landlord seeking an injunction restraining him from evicting them except by due process of law. The said suit was pending and the respondent/Landlord was examined as DW1. During his cross-examination, he is stated to have admitted that there was an oral agreement between the parties and that at the time of entering into the said agreement, the subject matter was only a vacant site. The deposition of DW1 was produced by the petitioners and marked as Ex.R1. When the petitioners attempted to mark the document, dated 15/03/1991 before the learned Trial Court, the learned Trial Court refused to receive the same on the ground that the document was insufficiently stamped and unregistered.

4. It is the further contention of the petitioners that an unregistered document could nevertheless be received in evidence for a collateral purpose and therefore, its admission could not be refused solely on the ground of non-registration. It is further contended that since the respondent/Landlord had himself admitted in the earlier suit that the parties had entered into an oral agreement in respect of the vacant site, he could not now dispute the same. In view of the above circumstances, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners sought to set aside the order passed by the learned Trial Court and to direct the Trial Court to receive and mark the said document, by allowing this civil revision petition.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Landlord submitted that, according to the petitioners themselves, the lease was for a period of five years and therefore, the document was compulsorily registrable under Section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act, 1908. It is further submitted that in view of Section 49 of the Registration Act, an unregistered lease deed cannot be received in evidence for proving the lease transaction or the terms thereof. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paul Rubber Industries Private Limited Vs. Amit Chand Mitra and another, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1216, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, referring to the earlier decision in K.B.Saha and Sons Private Limited v. Development Consultant Limited, [(2008) 8 SCC 564], held as follows:-

“(i).A document required to be registered, if unregistered, is not admissible into evidence under Section 49 of the Registration Act.

(ii) .Such an unregistered document can, however, be used as evidence of a collateral purpose as provided in the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act.

(iii) .A collateral transaction must be independent of, or divisible from, the transaction to effect which the law required registration.

(iv) .A collateral transaction must be a transaction not itself required to be effected by a registered document.

(v) .If a document is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration, none of its terms can be admitted in evidence and to use the document for the purpose of proving an important clause would not amount to using it for a collateral purpose.”

6. In view of the above circumstances, he prays for the dismissal of the civil revision petition.

7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.

8. In this case, the petitioners seek to mark the document, dated 15/03/1991, which is alleged to be a lease agreement entered into between the parties for a period of five years. The learned Trial Court refused to receive the said document on the ground that it was insufficiently stamped and unregistered. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that the said document had already been marked as Ex.A1 in O.S.No.1233 of 2004 and therefore, the respondent cannot now object to its marking in the present proceedings.

10. It is true that under Section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, where an instrument has been admitted in evidence, such admission cannot, except as provided in Section 61, be called in question at any stage of the same suit or proceeding on the ground that the instrument has not been duly stamped. However, the said provision would apply only to an instrument which has already been admitted in evidence in the same suit or proceeding. In the present case, the document in question was admittedly marked as Ex.A1 in another suit. Therefore, the fact that the document was admitted in evidence in the earlier suit would not, by itself, preclude the respondent from questioning its admissibility in the present proceedings. The circumstances under which the document was admitted in evidence in the earlier suit are also not before this Court.

11. According to the petitioners, the document, dated 15/03/1991 was executed as a lease agreement for a period of five years. Therefore, by its very nature, the said document is one which requires compulsory registration under Section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act, 1908, read with Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Consequently, in the absence of registration, the document cannot be received in evidence for the purpose of proving the lease transaction or the terms and duration of the lease.

12. The legal position regarding an unregistered lease deed has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s.Paul Rubber Industries Private Limited Vs. Amit Chand Mitra and another, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1216. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after considering Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 and Section

107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, held that a lease of immovable property for any term exceeding one year can be made only by a registered instrument. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that an unregistered lease deed cannot be received in evidence for proving the transaction affecting the immovable property, though it may, in an appropriate case, be looked into for a collateral purpose.

13. In the present case, the petitioners seek to rely upon the document, dated 15/03/1991 for establishing the nature of their tenancy and the terms and duration of the alleged lease. Therefore, the document is not sought to be relied upon for proving any independent or collateral transaction. The main purpose for which the document is sought to be marked is to establish the lease transaction itself. Hence, the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act cannot be invoked to overcome the statutory bar against receiving an unregistered lease deed in evidence for proving the lease transaction or its terms.

14. The contention of the petitioners that the document had already been marked as Ex.A1 in O.S.No.1233 of 2004 also cannot improve their case. The earlier admission of the document in a different suit does not automatically render the document admissible in the present proceedings.

Its admissibility has to be considered independently in accordance with law.

15. Likewise, the fact that the respondent/Landlord is stated to have admitted the existence of an oral agreement in the earlier proceedings does not make the unregistered lease deed admissible for proving the terms of the alleged written lease. The alleged oral admission and the admissibility of the document, dated 15/03/1991 are distinct questions which have to be considered independently.

16. Further, the learned Trial Court has specifically found that the document is insufficiently stamped. The admissibility of an insufficiently stamped instrument is governed by the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. An instrument which is insufficiently stamped cannot be admitted in evidence unless the deficit stamp duty and the applicable penalty are paid and the instrument is otherwise dealt with in accordance with law.

17. The objection relating to insufficient stamping is distinct from the objection relating to non-registration. Even if an unregistered document is sought to be relied upon for a permissible collateral purpose under the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, such document

must nevertheless satisfy the requirements of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 before it can be admitted in evidence. The plea of collateral purpose does not dispense with the statutory requirement relating to payment of proper stamp duty.

18. In the present case, the petitioners have not established that the document, dated 15/03/1991 has been duly stamped. On the contrary, the learned Trial Court has found that the document is insufficiently stamped. Therefore, the document cannot be admitted in evidence unless the defect relating to stamp duty is first dealt with in accordance with law. The defect relating to insufficient stamp duty and the defect relating to non- registration operate independently. Curing the defect relating to stamp duty would not, by itself, cure the defect of non-registration.

19. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds that the learned Trial Court was justified in refusing to receive and mark the document dated 15/03/1991. The document, being insufficiently stamped, cannot be admitted unless the statutory requirements under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 are complied with. Independently, being an unregistered lease deed allegedly executed for a period of five years, it cannot be relied upon for proving the lease transaction or its terms, in view of

Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908.

20. In view of the above facts, this Court finds no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the order passed by the learned Trial Court warranting interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

21. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 25/09/2026 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No er To,

1. The Additional District Munsif, Madurai Town.

2. The Section Officer, VR/ER Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court. Madurai.

R.POORNIMA., J er CRP(MD)No.410 of 2025 25/09/2026