Registration Act | Inadmissibility Of Unregistered Documents Has To Be Raised When Marked In Evidence During Trial: Kerala High Court

Justice A. Badharudeen also clarified that if the parties have not raised objection to the unregistered document while it was marked as evidence during the trial stage, then they cannot raise objection stating that the document was unregistered during the appellate stage.

"When a question as to the admissibility of a document is raised on the ground that it has not been stamped or has not been properly stamped, it has to be decided then and there when the document would be tendered in evidence. Once the court rightly or wrongly decided to admit the document in evidence, so far as the parties are concerned, the matter is closed," the bench reiterated citing Supreme Court's decision in Javer Chand and Others v. Pukhraj Surana (1961).

In this case it said, “Ext.A1 is a document which would require compulsory registration in tune with the mandate of Section 17 of the Registration Act. Therefore, Ext.A1, in fact, is inadmissible in evidence. In this matter, the document has been marked without any objection and objection regarding its admissibility has been raised before this Court at the second appellate stage.”

The Second Appeal was filed by the defendant against the judgment and decree of the lower courts allowing the suit in favor of the plaintiff. The shop room of the plaintiff was rented out to the defendant for a period of three years based on a rent agreement (Exhibit A1 document). As the defendant defaulted the payment of rent, the plaintiff filed suit for recovery of possession of the room and sought for permanent prohibitory injunction. The suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant has approached the High Court stating that the rent agreement was unregistered, and that the Trial Court should not have accepted it as evidence.

The Court considered mainly two issues, firstly, if an unregistered document which was required to be registered under the Registration Act, if remained unregistered, could be admissible in evidence. Secondly, the legal effect of marking a document as evidence without objection.

The Court examined Section 17 and 49 of the Registration Act. Section 17 provides the documents that are to be compulsorily registered and Section 17 (d) provides that lease agreements concerning immovable property from year to year or extending one year has to be mandatorily registered. Section 49 states the effect of non-registration of documents that have be registered under Section 17. Section 49 mandates that unregistered documents cannot be received as evidence unless it was tendered as evidence for collateral transactions.

The Court examined the necessity of registration of a document required to be registered and its legal consequences, if unregistered. It found that according to the proviso to Section 49, unregistered document could be used as evidence of collateral purpose. It noted that the term collateral purpose would mean ‘purpose/transaction which is independent of, or devisable from the transaction which requires registration’.

The Court on examining the provisions under the Registration Act and relying upon various Apex Court decisions held that the lease agreement which ought to have been compulsory registered was inadmissible as evidence because it was unregistered. It held thus:

“Indubitably an unregistered document, required to be registered, if unregistered, the same is inadmissible in evidence. However, as provided under proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, the same can be used for collateral purposes.”

Justice Badharudeen noted that the defendant had raised no objections to the lease agreement when it was marked as evidence during the trial stage. The Court relied upon the Apex Court decision in Javer Chand and Others v. Pukhraj Surana (1961) to state that any objections regarding the admissibility of document should be raised at the stage when the document was marked as evidence. It stated that once the document was marked as evidence, even if rightly or wrongly, then objections to the admissibility of documents cannot be raised later.

“Once the court rightly or wrongly decided to admit the document in evidence, so far as the parties are concerned, the matter is closed. It has further held that once a document had been admitted in evidence, as aforesaid, it is not open either to the trial court itself or to the court of appeal or revision to go behind that order.”

On the above observations, the Court dismissed the Second Appeal and held that the plaintiff who was the landlord was entitled to get possession of the room as the defendant has admitted his status as a tenant.

Counsel for the appellant: Advocate K Siju

Counsel for the respondent: Advocate Latheesh Sebastian

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 496

Case title: Ratheesh V V S Mary

Case number: RSA NO. 838 Of 2020

Click Here To Download/Read Judgment