AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 354 wordsMohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.—The court below has rejected I.A. 12 filed by the defendant u/s 151 of CPC praying permission to mark the unregistered sale deeds dated 2.5.1983 and 30.7.1992.
The plaintiff also claims to be the owner in possession of the suit schedule property under registered sale deed The defendant also claims to be the owner in possession of the suit schedule property under different unregistered sale deeds. The unregistered sale deed of the plaintiff is marked as Ex. P.1 without paying any stamp duty as well as penalty, on the ground that the same is taken on record only for collateral purpose i.e., in order to show possession.
Similar contention was raised by the defendant for getting his sale deed produced. At that time, the impugned order is passed. The question as to, whether the unregistered sale deed tendered in evidence can be looked into as a proof of an agreement of sale or only for collateral purpose or not, is fully covered by decision of the Supreme Court in the case of S. Kaladevi Vs. V.R. Somasundaram and Others, . The court below will have to reconsider the issue based on the said judgment and the other judgments on the point. While doing so, the court below will have to keep in mind the purpose for which the document is being relied upon.
Learned advocate for the respondent however submits that the unregistered sale deed produced by the petitioner is unsigned document and the signatures are forged. The reliability of the document will have to be gone into by the trial Court after recording the evidence. But the initial question to be decided is as to, ''whether the unregistered sale deed can be looked into or admissible as evidence for collateral transaction or not. Therefore, the said question has to be reconsidered by the trial Court in the light of the aforesaid judgment and other judgments on that point.
With these observations, the impugned order stands quashed. I.A. 12 has to be reconsidered by the trial Court after hearing both the parties. The Writ Petition stands allowed.