CRP(MD)/2504/2024 of Palanikumar Vs Pandhanam on 24 September 2026

O R D E R

This civil revision petition is filed against the Dairy order & Fair Order, dated 12/08/2024 made in OS No.136 of 2019 by the District Musif Court, Nilakottai.

2. The petitioners are the defendants 1 and 2 in O.S No.136 of 2019, instituted by the first respondent/plaintiff seeking for a declaration of title, recovery of possession and also for a mandatory injunction against the petitioners and the 3rd respondent herein. When the suit was posted for the defendants’ evidence, the petitioners filed an application seeking permission to produce and mark an unregistered sale deed, dated 08/09/1989 in evidence. The Trial Court rejected the said application on the ground that the alleged unregistered sale deed cannot be received in evidence and not admissible in evidence also. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed, contending that the document could be received in evidence subject to proof, relevancy and admissibility and that no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff merely by permitting the document to be produced and marked in evidence.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Trial Court erred in concluding that Document No.1, dated 08/09/1989 is an unregistered sale deed relied upon to establish title to the suit property. It is further submitted that at the stage of considering the application, the Court need not conclusively determine whether the document is relied upon to establish title or for a collateral purpose, as the questions of proof, relevancy and admissibility may be considered at the appropriate stage of the trial. The learned counsel further submits that in view of the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, an unregistered document that requires compulsory registration under Section 17 of the said Act is not wholly inadmissible in evidence and may be received for a legally permissible collateral purpose. Therefore, the learned counsel prays for allowing the civil revision petition.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/plaintiff submits that the petitioners did not produce the document at the time of filing the written statement. It is further submitted that the affidavit filed in support of the application does not adequately specify the particulars of the document sought to be produced or the purpose for which it is sought to be relied upon. According to the learned counsel, the explanation offered by the petitioners is that certain documents kept in the house had gone missing during whitewashing and were subsequently traced. However, the particulars of the document and the purpose for which it is sought to be marked have not been properly stated in the application or the accompanying list of documents. On examination, the document is found to be an unregistered sale deed. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the Trial Court rightly rejected the application, as the document cannot be admitted in evidence to establish the transfer of title when registration is compulsory. It is also contended that if the document is insufficiently stamped, its admissibility is subject to the applicable provisions of the stamp law. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent further submits that the petitioners have not established any legally permissible collateral purpose for which the document is sought to be received in evidence. It is further contended that an unregistered sale deed cannot be relied upon to prove the very transaction of sale or to establish title to immovable property. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court does not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity warranting interference by this Court and prays for dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and perused the materials available on record.

6. The point for consideration is whether the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioners seeking permission to produce and mark the unregistered sale deed dated 08/09/1989 in evidence.

7. It is not in dispute that the document sought to be produced and marked is an unregistered sale deed dated 08/09/1989. The petitioners contend that the document may be received in evidence subject to proof, relevancy and admissibility and that its admissibility may be determined at the appropriate stage of the trial. On the other hand, the 1st respondent contend that the document is sought to be relied upon to establish title to the suit property and that the same cannot be admitted in evidence for such a purpose in the absence of registration.

8. Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908, provides for compulsory registration of non-testamentary instruments that purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in the present or in the future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards in immovable property. Section 49 of the said Act provides for the consequences of non-registration of documents required to be registered under Section 17. Under the proviso to Section 49, an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required to be registered may nevertheless be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance or as evidence of a collateral transaction not required to be effected by a registered instrument.

9. In the present case, the petitioners seek to produce and mark the said sale deed on the ground that it is necessary to establish the foundational facts relating to the purchase of the property, the construction of a building thereon and their alleged possession and occupation of the property. However, the nature and purpose of the document must be ascertained from its contents and the purpose for which it is sought to be relied upon, and not merely from the description assigned to it by the party seeking to produce it.

10. On a perusal of the document, it appears that the petitioners seek to rely upon the said sale deed as the source of their alleged title to the suit property. The document is, therefore, sought to be relied upon not merely to establish a collateral fact but also to substantiate the alleged purchase of the property and the consequent claim of title. An unregistered sale deed, which is compulsorily registrable under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908, cannot be relied upon to establish the transfer of title to immovable property. The proviso to Section 49 does not permit the use of such a document to establish title under the guise of proving a collateral purpose.

11. It is well settled that the expression “collateral purpose” cannot be construed so as to permit an unregistered instrument to be used for proving the very transaction that requires compulsory registration. Whether a document can be received for a collateral purpose depends upon the nature of the transaction sought to be established and the purpose for which the document is tendered in evidence. The mere assertion that the document is required to prove the purchase, construction or possession of the property does not, by itself, render the document admissible for that purpose if its use would, in substance, amount to proving the transfer of title.

12. Further, if the document is insufficiently stamped, its admissibility is also subject to the applicable provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, including Sections 33 and 35, or the corresponding provisions of the applicable State stamp law. A document chargeable with duty cannot be admitted in evidence unless the statutory requirements relating to payment of duty and penalty, where applicable, are complied with.

13. In the light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the view that an unregistered sale deed cannot be admitted in evidence for the purpose of establishing the transfer of title to immovable property where registration is compulsory under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. The petitioners have not established that the document is sought to be relied upon for an independent collateral purpose falling within the proviso to Section 49 of the said Act. In these circumstances, the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the application insofar as the document was sought to be relied upon to establish the transfer of title.

14. This Court finds no illegality or material irregularity in the order passed by the Trial Court warranting interference in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 24/09/2026 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No ns/er

To,

1. The District Munsif Court, Nilakottai.

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

R.POORNIMA.,J ns/er CRP(MD)No.2504 of 2024 24/09/2026