Unregistered Arbitration Award Can Be Admissible In Evidence Only For Collateral Purpose But Not For Proving The Fact Of Partition Of Suit Property: Telangana HC
The Telangana High Court observed that an unregistered Arbitration Award can be admissible in evidence only for collateral purposes to the extent of establishing the severance of title, and nature of possession of various shares but not for proving the factum of partition of the suit properties.
The Court held thus in a Civil Revision Petition which was filed questioning the validity and legality of the order passed by the trial Court which declined to receive the unregistered Award as evidence on the ground that the same is hit by Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908.
The bench of Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty observed, “Thus, the law is well settled that an unregistered document can be admissible in evidence only for collateral purpose, which is other than the primary purpose of execution of the said document...the unregistered Award can be admissible in evidence only for collateral purpose to the extent of establishing the severancy of title, nature of possession of various shares, i.e., in other words to establish the character, nature, identity and location in respect of the subject matter, but not for proving the factum of partition of the suit properties.”
Advocate Bankatlal Mandhani appeared for the Petitioner.
Brief Facts-
The subject suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking to partition the suit properties into five equal shares and to allot one such share to the plaintiff by metes and bounds. During the trial in the said suit, the plaintiff sought to mark the unregistered Award under which the Arbitrators have partitioned the movable and immovable properties among the legal heirs of Adluri Krishna Murthy. The trial Court observed that since the Award is unregistered, it is not admissible in evidence and accordingly, declined to mark the said document.
The Court mentioned the decision of the Supreme Court in Yellapu Uma Maheswari v. Buddha Jagadheeswararao and quoted, “Section 17(1)(b) of Registration Act mandates that any document which has the effect of creating and taking away the rights in respect of an immovable property must be registered and Section 49 of the Act imposes bar on the admissibility of an unregistered document and deals with documents that are required to be registered under Section 17 of required to be registered under Section 17 of the Act.”
After going through the various Supreme Court judgments on the subject, the Court observed ‘it is clear that the compulsorily registrable document if not registered, is inadmissible in evidence for proving the primary purpose for which it was executed. In a suit for partition, an unregistered document can be relied upon only for collateral purposes i.e., severance of title, nature of possession of various shares, but not for the primary purpose i.e., division of joint properties by metes and bounds.”
According to the Court, the said unregistered document can be used for collateral purposes to the limited extent of establishing the nature, identity and location of the properties sought to be partitioned.
However, the Court stated that an unstamped instrument is not admissible in evidence even for collateral purposes, until the same is impounded.
The Court set aside the impugned order.
Appearance:
Adv. Bankatlal Mandhani