HON'BLE JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
C.RP.No.725 of 2023
Between: Asma Mahmood Quadri, W/o Syed Mehamood Quadri … Petitioner
And
Zakia Rafath Sultana, W/o Syed Misbha Uddin and 12 others. … Respondents
19. Also, in Yellapu Uma Maheswari & Anr. v. Buddha Jagadheeswara Rao & Ors8 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court at para 15 held as under:- “It is well settled that the nomenclature given to the document is not decisive factor, but the nature and 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 introduce the document in question.
A thorough reading of both Exs.B-21 and B-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, it becomes an inadmissible document as envisaged under Section 49 of the Registration Act. Hence, Exs.B-21 and B-22 are the documents which squarely fall within the ambit of Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act and hence, are compulsorily registerable documents and the same are inadmissible in evidence for the purpose of proving the factum of partition between the parties. We are of the considered opinion that Exs.B-21 and B-22 are not admissible in evidence for the purpose of proving primary purpose of partition.”
20. Such being the legal position, the unregistered agreement dated 22.11.1986, can be used for collateral purpose other than that of creating, declaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing a right to the suit schedule property. In other words, the said unregistered document can be used for the collateral purpose to the limited extent of showing possession/nature/character of possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property
21. In the instant case, the plaintiff sought for eviction of the defendant and to hand over vacant possession of the suit schedule property. Thus, it is evident that as on the date of filing of the suit, the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit schedule property. The document sought to be marked by the plaintiff is an unregistered agreement under which the plaintiff is claiming title, therefore, the said document is registerable under Section 17 of the Registration Act.
23. In view of above discussion and analysis, and also in the light of bar under Section 49 of the Registration Act, non-registration of a document, which is required to be registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act, does not confer any power and cannot be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power, unless it has been registered. Therefore, the unregistered agreement dated 22.11.1986 cannot be used even for the collateral purpose of proving the possession of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property.
25. For the foregoing reasons, discussion and the legal position, this Court is of the considered view that the trial Court has not committed any illegality, irregularity or infirmity in declining to admit the unregistered agreement dated 22.11.1986 in evidence.
26. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
27. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY Date:04.04.2024
