Ranganatha Gounder vs Perumal Nattar

R. Balasubramanian, J.—The defendant is O.S. No. 859 of 1995 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Villupuram, is the revision

petitioner, The respondent is the plaintiff in that suit. The suit is for declaration of title in respect of D schedule property and for recovery of

possession of the said property free from obstruction and for mesne profits. During the course of trial, a document dated 22.6.1995 stated to have

been executed by the defendant in the suit to the plaintiff therein, was sought to be marked. The marking and the admissibility of that document was

objected to by the defendant. The learned trial Judge by order dated 18.7.1998 held that the said document is admissible in evidence. Hence, the

present revision before this Court on that issue.

I heard Mr. V. Raghavachari, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. K. Kannan, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.

At this stage, this Court is concerned only with the admissibility of the document referred to above. The document in Tamil is dated 22.6.1995

stated to have been executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. The sum and substance of the document in English translation is as follows:

I am cultivating the lands belonging to you and described in the schedule under a lease deed dated 29.11.1972; from then onwards till date I am in

arrears of lease amount to you for the last three years at the rate of 12 bags of paddy per year amounting to 36 bags of paddy. In regard thereto

you have given a lawyer''s notice dated 25.2.1995 demanding the payment of the lease amount as well as possession. As a result of the mediators

steping in, a request was made by me to you waive the sum of Rs. 7,200 representing the money value for 36 bags of paddy payable in kind as

lease amount and as a result of you agreeing for the same in turn and in consideration of the same, I have surrendered the lands which I have been

cultivating and in my possession to you as on date. You have also taken possession of the same and I hereby declare that I will not hereafter wards

claim any leasehold rights. I on my own under this document release all my lease rights.

A reading of the document referred to above clearly shows that consideration passed between the plaintiff and the defendant under the document

resulting in the defendant surrendering lands in his occupation as well as giving up his rights as a tenant. Section 17 of the Registration Act 1908,

herein after referred to as the Act prescribes types of documents for which registration is compulsory. The document so compulsorily registrable as

far as the present case on hand is concerned is set out in Section 17(1)(c) of the Act under which non-testamentary instruments which

acknowledge the receipt or payment of any consideration on account of the creation, declaration, assignment, limitation or extinction of any right,

title or interest, shall be registered. In the document on hand, there is consideration and the document extinguishes the right of the tenant in the

property mentioned therein. u/s 49(c) of the Act, no document required by Section 17 to be registered shall be received as evidence of any

transaction affecting such property or conferring such power unless it has been registered. Therefore, reading Sections 17(1)(c) and 49(c) of the

Act together, there cannot be any doubt that the document in question is compulsorily registrable and that it shall not be received in evidence unless

it is registered.

Mr. V. Raghavachari, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended therefore that the order of the court below is bad in law and the

document shall not be received in evidence. Mr. K. Kannan, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent would state that there is no legal right

in favour of the defendant as a lessee when he executed the document in question and when that is so, he cannot validly transfer or extinguish any

such alleged right in the property. Therefore, according to him, the document is not hit by Sections 17(1)(b) and 49(c) of the Act. In elaborating

this argument, he would add that there is no lease document between the parties and therefore there is no legal right in the defendant. Applying my

mind to the argument of the learned Counsel for the respondent. I find that no foundation is laid for such an argument. It must be noticed that the

plaintiff himself relies upon this document. Mr. V. Raghavachari, in support of his contention that this document requires compulsory registration

and in the absence of the same, it shall not be received in evidence, brought to my notice three judgments viz., Rangayya Appa Rau v. Kameswara

Rao 7 M.L.J. 59 : ILR 20 Mad. 367 and M.S. Ram Singh Vs. Bijoy Singh Surana and Another, . In the first case, the plaintiff was a zamindar and

the defendant was a tenant. He sued for a declaration of his title and for possession of certain land of which the first defendant had been in

possession as a tenant. It appears that the tenant having fallen into difficulties executed a document on the 20th June, 1888 addressed to the

plaintiff in the following terms:

To the Zamindar & Co., relinquishment report put in by Govindarajulu Kameshwara Rao, cultivator of Gurazada, being unable to cultivate the 16

acres 84 cents of dry land and 7 acres and 87 cents of wetland, 24 acres and 72 cents in all, which I have been cultivating in the village of

Gurazada, and, finding it inconvenient to pay the arrears on it, I have relinquished the right to the Sirkar (i. e., the Zamindar). I agree to the removal

of that land from the village accounts in my name for fasli 1298 and to your disposing of the same at your pleasure without my having anything to

do with the arrears of Rs. 600 and odd due thereon. This relinquishment report is put in with consent.

The Courts below refused to admit that document for want of registration. In that context, the learned Judges of this Court held that the document

referred to above was one given for a consideration which moved from the plaintiff to the defendant, that is the waiver by the former of his right to

the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 600 due at the time of relinquishment, which is clear from the terms of the instrument itself and therefore it

requires registration. In Neelakanta Rao v. State of Mysore (referred above), the question that was considered is whether the surrender deed

executed by a tenant in favour of the landlord requires registration or not. The learned Judges have held as follows:

A surrender deed executed by a tenant in favour of the landlord in respect of his tenancy the due of which exceeds Rs. 100 is clearly an instrument

which purports to extinguish the right of the tenant, the value of which is over Rs. 100 and as such comes within Clause (b) of Section 17(1) and

therefore, is compulsorily registrable. Such a document if not registered, cannot be received in evidence of the transaction of surrender affecting the

property in view of Section 49 Registration Act.

This was followed in the last judgment referred to above. In the case on hand, there is no dispute that the value of the property is more than Rs.

100 since the plaintiff himself valued the suit properties at Rs. 300. Therefore I have no hesitation to hold that the documents dated 22.6.1995

stated to be entered into between the defendant and the plaintiff in O.S. No. 859 of 1995 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Villupuram,

is compulsorily registrable and as it is not so done, it is inadmissible in evidence, civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P.

No. 17840 of 1998 is dismissed.