SortMyLawSchool | Header Banner
SortMyLawSchool | Header Banner
  1. Home
  2. / Subject
  3. /Minor Act and SC Rules

YELLAPU UMA MAHESWARI V. BUDDHA JAGADHEESWARARAO (2015)16SCC787

 YELLAPU UMA MAHESWARI V. BUDDHA JAGADHEESWARARAO  (2015)16SCC787

FACTS

  • The plaintiff filed a suit for partition, claiming shares in certain properties based on a registered will made by Jaggayya, the plaintiff's foster father.
  • The defendants, who are the appellants, resisted the suit, claiming that the properties had already been partitioned in 1969, and the plaintiff had received his share.
  • The defendants also presented two unregistered and unstamped documents, Exhibits B21 and B22, as evidence of a previous partition agreement between the parties.
  • The plaintiff contended that both Exhibits B-21 and B-22 should be considered relinquishment deeds, requiring compulsory registration under Section 17(b) of the Registration Act, 1908.
  • The defendants argued that the documents referred to past transactions and future agreements, not constituting relinquishment deeds, and thus, did not require registration.
  • Trial Court and High Court have decided that Exhibits B21 and B22 are not evidence of past transactions. Instead, they reveal the partition of the property and the relinquishment of rights by one of the parties. As such, they require stamp duty and registration. Since these exhibits are unregistered and unstamped, they are not admissible as evidence.
  • Present appeal is filed against the rejection of revision petition filed before HC against above judgment. 

ISSUE

  • Whether Exhibits B21 and B22 are admissible in evidence, considering they are unregistered and unstamped documents, whether these can be used for any collateral purpose.

RULE

  • Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908 mandates the registration of documents creating or affecting rights in immovable property.
  • Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 prohibits the admissibility of unregistered documents affecting immovable property.
  • If a document is deemed to be unregistered and inadmissible for the primary purpose, it may still be admissible for collateral purposes, such as establishing the severance of title or the nature of possession of various shares, provided the requisite stamp duty and penalty are paid and the document is impounded.

HELD

  • Exhibits B21 and B22 purportedly evidence past transactions involving partition and relinquishment of rights in immovable property.
  • The documents fall within the ambit of Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act and are compulsorily registerable.
  • Exhibits B21 and B22 are deemed inadmissible in evidence for proving the primary purpose i.e., determining the specific shares of partition.
  • Chinnappa Reddy Gari Muthyala Reddy v. Chinnappa Reddy Gari Venkat Reddy, AIR 1969 A.P (242), held that partition involves three phases: severance of status, division of joint property, and determining possession. Unregistered documents are only admissible for collateral purposes, not for dividing joint properties. Unstamped instruments must be impounded before they can be used as evidence. To use unregistered documents for collateral purposes, appellants/defendants must pay stamp duty and penalty and get them impounded. The Trial Court may then mark them as evidence if they're relevant and can be proven.
  • Accordingly, Civil Appeal is partly allowed holding that Exhibits B-21 and B-22 are admissible in evidence for collateral purposes subject to payment of stamp duty, penalty, proof and relevancy.