TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1981 (1) TMI 293
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at time the defendant's father was in possession of 'B' schedule properly measuring 0.34 cents. The plaintiff and the defendant wanted to have exchange of these two properties. The plaintiff agreed to exchange 'A' schedule property measuring 0-49 cents for 0-34 cents of 'B' schedule property belonging to the defendant and the defendant agreed for the same. Hence the exchange deed was executed and in pursuance of the exchange deed the plaintiff took possession of 0-34 cents from the defendant delivering his 0-49 cents to him. The defendant failed to substantiate his title in respect of the 0-34 cents given to the plaintiff in exchange of the 0-49 cents and hence the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of possession of 0.49 cents given to the defendant. 2. The plaintiff now wants to prove that the defendant has been in possession of 0.49 cents given to him under the exchange deed and hence he tendered the document for proving the fact that he delivered possession of the 'A' schedule property to the defendant. Since the document was not stamped, it was sent to the R. D. O. for duty and penalty. The R. D. O. impounded the same and imposed duty and p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... deed requires registration, since it conveys title in respect of immovable property for which it was executed and if the document is not registered, it cannot be received in evidence for proving the fact that title was obtained under the exchange deed. But, Sri Ramakrishna Raju the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he is relying upon the document for collateral purpose i.e. , for proving possession, but not title in respect of the suit property. 7. It is now well settled that there is no prohibition under Section 49 of the Registration Act, to receive an unregistered document in evidence for collateral purpose. But the document so tendered should be duly stamped or should comply with the requirements of Section 35 of the Stamp Act, if not stamped, as a document cannot be received in evidence even for collateral purpose unless it is duly stamped or duty and penalty are paid under Section 35 of the Stamp Act. 8. In the case on hand, the document sought to be received in evidence was originally not stamped. Then the plaintiff requested the Court to send it to the R. D. O. for impounding, that the request of the plaintiff was accepted and the Court was pleased to send....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce for collateral purpose. Under the said bond 'A' assigned to 'B' the 'Vahivat of assessment' of certain lands as security for a loan of Rs. 10,000/-. The bond says that 'B' should receive the assessment, and after making certain payments, should retain the balance in lieu of interest until the principal is paid. The assessment was duly received until April, 1887. In Feb., 1890, 'B' filed the suit to recover the principal sum from 'A' personally, relinquishing his claim against the land. But. 'A' pleaded limitation. Their Lordships held that the bond was tendered to prove the assignment of 'vahivat of assessment', which is a benefit arising out of immovable property and it should, therefore, be registered and it cannot be admitted, since not registered. 13. This decision, therefore, makes it abundantly clear that the document sought to be received in evidence was not admitted because it was not registered, because it requires to be registered, since 'vahivat of assessment' is a benefit arising out of immovable property and the registration of the document is, therefore, compulsory. This decision does not say....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., in the circumstances, would be entitled to redeem. The learned Judges held that it is impossible to suggest that that was a collateral purpose because mortgagors claimed the right to redeem and therefore, that was not a collateral purpose. 17. The ruling in the above case also does not help the counsel for the respondent, since it is well settled that the rights of the plaintiffs as mortgagors are entitled to redeem and hence it cannot be treated, as a collateral purpose. 18. It is, therefore, clear that these decisions do not help the respondent. 19. But, the main ground on which the lower Court refused to receive the document is non-payment of the surcharge. I think that the lower Court is not justified in doing so. Merely because the surcharge is not paid, the document cannot be held to be inadmissible in evidence, as none of the provisions of the Gram Panchayat Act, or the relevant Rules made thereunder, refers to Section 35 of the Stamp Act and makes it applicable to the duty on transfers of property. If the legislature had intended to make such a penal provision as Section 35 of the Stamp Act applicable to such duty, it would not have omitted it from making a clear provi....