9728722, 903 AM Unstamped & Unregistered Documents ané Collateral Purpose ~ Sa Kodwvath Associates Aug 14 2021 Unstamped & Unregistered Documents and Collateral Purpose Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam. Introspection ‘Sec. 35 of the Indian Stamp Act is the Does the law allow to use unstamped or {o Felevant provision. But, it can be used insufficiently stamped document in evidence? N° lafter payment of penalty (except promissory note) Poss the law allow to ‘Sec. 49 of the Registration Act bars. luse unregistered (compulsory registrable) No Bt ‘t can be used for collateral purposes. jeed in evidence? J ‘Should he. court exclude an unregistered (compulsory\,,..(2008) 8 SCC 564 registrable) deed even if marked without But, it can be used for collateral purposes. bjection? ‘Omprakash v. Laxminarayan, (2074) 1 SCC. 618; AIR 1946 PC 51; 2017 AIR(CC) 1893 (Ori); ILR 2017-1 Ker 951; 2017-3 AIR(Kar) KR) 570; AIR 2015 Kar 175. 2017-3 AIR(Kar)(R) 570; IAIR 2015 Kar 175 \Should the court exclude an insufficiently {stamped (or unstamped) deed even if once Yes) Imarked without objection? Is there a duty upon Judge not to admita jocument that is not duly stamped even if no Yes; bjection to mark it? Is there a duly upon Judge to impound every jocument not duly stamped, irrespective of Ye: bjection to mark it? .g2017-3 AIR(Kar)(R) 570; /AIR 2015 Kar 175 in case of an unregistered (compulsorily registrable) document: Sec. 49 of the Registration Act. itis the duty of every Judge not to admita document that is not duly stamped, even if Ino objection to other side. 2017-3 AIR(Kar) hen does question of using a document for {collateral purpose’ arise? (Can the court allow to use an unstamped or insufficiently stamped document for ‘collateral No purpose’? (R) 570; AIR 2015 Kar 175. It may be used in a suit for specific performance under Proviso to Sec. 49 of the (Can a document, required to be registered, Registration Act. And, it can be received as lbut not registered, be used in a suit Yesfevidence of an oral agreement of sale. (or specific performance. 'S. Kaladevi v. V.R. Somasundaram, (2010) 5 [SCC 401; Ameer Minhaj v. Dierdre Elizabeth |__ (wright) tssar, 2018 (7) SCC 639. INSUFFICIENTLY STAMPED DOCUMENTS - Effect of Marking Without Objection Sec, 35, Indian Stamp Act reads as under: “35. Instruments not duly stamped inadmissible in evidence, ete-No instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, or shall be acted upon, registered or authenticated by any such person or by any public officer, unless such instrument is duly stamped: Provided that—(a) any such instrument shall, be admitted in evidence on payment of the duty with which the same is chargeable, or, in the case of an instrument insufficiently stamped, of the amount required to make up such duty, together with a penalty of five hitpssincianavive:no/202-V08/14tunstampod-unregistered-documents-and-colateral-purposell~toxt=The power of impounding aexeresing is po. 1/109728722, 903 AM Unstamped & Unregistered Documents and Collateral Purpose ~ Saji Kodwvath Associates Tupees, or, when ten times the amount of the proper duty or deficient portion thereof exceeds five rupees, of a sum equal to ten times such duty or portion; (b) where any person from whom a stamped receipt could have been demanded, has given an unstamped receipt and such receipt, if stamped, would be admissible in evidence against him, then such receipt shall be admitted in evidence against him, then such receipt shall be admitted in evidence against him on payment of a penalty of one rupee by the person tendering it; (c) where a contract or agreement of any kind is effected by correspondence consisting of two or more letters and any one of the letters bears the proper stamp, the contract or agreement shall be deemed to be duly stamped; (d) nothing herein contained shall prevent the admission of any instrument in evidence in any proceeding in a Criminal Court, other than a proceeding under Chapter XII or Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898); (e) nothing herein contained shall prevent the admission of any instrument in any Court when such instrument has been executed by or on behalf of the Government or where it bears the certificate of the Collector as provided by section 32 or any other provision of this Act. looked at even for any collateral purpose, as it enacts that no instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence ‘for any purpose’. The unstamped (or inadequately stamped) document becomes admissible on payment of penalty under Stamp Act or on payment of the stamp duty after impounding. The Apex Court held (earlier view) in Javer Chand v. Pukhraj Surana, AIR 1961 SC 1655, as under: “Where 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 is tendered in evidence. The Court has to judicially determine the matter as soon as the document is tendered in evidence and before it is marked as an exhibit in the case. ... Once a document has been marked as an exhibit in the case and the trial has proceeded alll along on the footing that the document was an exhibit in the case and has been used by the parties in examination and cross-examination of their witnesses, S. 36 of the Stamp Act comes into operation. Once a document has been admitted in evidence, as aforesaid, it is not open either to the Trial Court itself or to a Court of Appeal or revision to go behind that order. Such an order is not one of those judicial orders which are liable to be reviewed or revised by the same Court or a Court of superior jurisdiction.” In Lothamasu Sambasiva Rao v. Thadwarthi Balakotiah, AIR 1973 AP 342, and several other decisions it had been (incorrectly) held that Section 35 was only a bar to the admissibility of an unstamped or insufficiently stamped document; and that when it was admitted in evidence it cannot afterwards be withdrawn. The courts relied on Section 36 of the Stamp Act provides as under: “Where an instrument has been admitted in evidence such admission shall not except as provided in Section 61, be called in question at any stage of the same suit or proceeding hitpssincianavive:no/202-V08/1tunstampod-unregistered-ocuments-and-colateral-purposell~toxt=The power of impounding aexeresing is po... 2/109728722, 903 AM Unstamped & Unregistered Documents and Collateral Purpose ~ Saji Kodwvath Associates on the ground that the instrument has not been duly stamped This view in the following cases also: Pankajakshan Nair v. Shylaja: LR 2017-1 Ker 951; Dundappa v. Subhash Bhimagouda Patil: 2017-3 AIR(Kar)(R) 570; Savithramma R. C. v. Vijaya Bank; AIR 2015 Kar 175; Jayalakshmamma v. Radhika: 2015 4 KarLJ 545; K. Amarnath v. Smt. Puttamma: ILR 1999 Kar. 4634 Nanda Behera v. Akhsaya Kumar Behera, 2017AIR (CC) 1893 Present View — Shall not admit Unless Duly Stamped The following two propositions stands paradoxical and incongruent. There is a duty upon every Judge not to admit a document that is not duly stamped even if no objection to mark it. - The court should not exclude an insufficiently stamped (or unstamped) deed once marked without objection. The Karnataka High Court held in Smt. Savithramma R.C v. M/s. Vijaya Bank, AIR 2015 Kar 175, as under: “6. From the aforesaid statutory provisions and the decisions, it is clear that a duty is cast upon every judge to examine every document, which is produced or comes before him in the performance of his functions. On such examination, if it appears to the Judge that such instrument is not duly stamped, an obligation is cast upon him to impound the same. This duty is to be performed by the Judge irrespective of the fact whether any objection to its marking is raised or not. Hence, there is a need for diligence on the part of the Court having regard to the statutory obligation under Section 33 of the Karnataka Stamp Act. Section 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act mandates that an instrument, which is not duly stamped shall not be admitted in evidence. If any objection is taken to the admissibility of the evidence, it shall be decided then and there. If this document is found to be insufficiently stamped, then in terms of the proviso(a) to Section 34, the Court shall call upon the person, who is tendering the said document to pay duty and ten times penalty and thereafter admit the document in evidence. If duty and penalty is not paid, the document shall not be admitted in evidence. If such an objection is not taken at the time of admitting the said instrument in evidence, and the insufficiently stamped document is admitted in evidence then Section 35 of the Act provides that such admission shall not be called in question at any stage of the same suit or proceedings on the ground that the instrument has not been duly stamped. It has nothing to do with impounding the document. A duty is cast upon every judge to examine every document that is sought to be marked in evidence. The nomenclature of the document is not decisive. The question of admissibility will have to be decided by reading the document and deciding its nature and classification. Even while recording ex parte evidence or while recording evidence in the absence of the Counsel for the other side, the Court should be vigilant and examine and ascertain the nature of the document proposed to be marked and ensure that it is a document which is admissible. The Court should not depend on objections of the other Counsel before considering whether the document is admissible in evidence or not. Section 33 of the Stamp Act casts a duty on the Court to ‘examine the document to find out whether it is duly stamped or not, irrespective of the fact whether an objection to its marking is raised or not” hitpssincianlavive.no/202-V08/1tunstampod-unregistered-documents-and-colateral-purposell~toxt=The power of impounding aexeresing is po. 3/109728722, 903 AM Unstamped & Unregistered Documents and Collateral Purpose ~ Saji Kodwvath Associates Though Smt. Savithramma R.C v. M/s. Vijaya Bank, AIR 2015 Kar 175, clarified the position with great clarity, still it is not definite whether the court should sit silent and mark the document if it is not opposed; and to raise its eye-brows after marking it unopposed. It is yet to be solved after considering all relevant aspects. It appears that the latest view of the Supreme Court is that given in Omprakash v, Laxminarayan, (2014) 1 SCC 618. In Omprakash v. Laxminarayan, (2014) 1 SCC 618, the Apex Court observed as under: “From a plain reading of the aforesaid provision (S. 35 of the Stamp Act), it is evident that an authority to receive evidence shall not admit any instrument unless it is duly, stamped. An instrument not duly stamped shall be admitted in evidence on payment of the duty with which the same is chargeable or in the case of an instrument insufficiently stamped, of the amount required to make up such duty together with penalty. As we have observed earlier, the deed of agreement having been insufficiently stamped, the same was inadmissible in evidence. The court being an authority to receive a document in evidence to give effect thereto, the agreement to sell with possession is an instrument which requires payment of the stamp duty applicable to a deed of conveyance. Duty as required, has not been paid and, hence, the trial court rightly held the same to be inadmissible in evidence.” The Apex Court upheld the observation of the MP High Court in Writ Petition No. 6464 of 2008, overruling the impugned judgment (Laxminarayan v. Omprakash 2008 (2) MPLJ 416). The MP High Court had observed as under: “8, A document would be admissible on basis of the recitals made in the document and not on basis of the pleadings raised by the parties. 9. It would be trite to say that if in a document certain recitals are made then the Court would decide the admissibility of the document on the strength of such recitals and not otherwise. In a given case, if there is an absolute unregistered sale deed and the parties say that the same is not required to be registered then we don't think that the Court would be entitled to admit the document because simply the parties say ‘so. The jurisdiction of the Court flows from Sec. 33, 35 and 38 of the Indian Stamp Act and the Court has to decide the question of admissibility. With all humility at our command we overrule the judgment in the matter of Laxminarayan (supra).” See Blog: (CLICK): Adjudication as to Proper Stamp under Stamp Act Unstamped o1 Unstamped or insufficiently stamped promissory note cannot be marked in evidence. The weight of authority is on the side that says it is incurable. Hence no secondary evidence can also be lead on the same. It cannot be used for collateral purpose also. But the creditor can prosecute a suit upon ‘original consideration’ Impounding of Documents ~ When Produced or when Exhibited in Yogesh Kumar Sikka v. Monika (2019) the P & H High Court held as under: “42. Court cannot say that it would impound the document only when the document is. tendered in evidence for marking. There may be instances where duty and penalty payable may be very high and the party may not choose to rely upon such insufficiently stamped document in order to avoid stamp duty and penalty. In such circumstances, it would result in loss of revenue to the exchequer. The power of impounding a document is to collect stamp duty and penalty whenever there is an escape of duty. Therefore, when i hitpssincianavive:no/202-V08/1tunstampod-unregistered-documents-and-colateral-purposell~toxt=The power of impounding aexeresing is po... 4/109728722, 903 AM Unstamped & Unregistered Documents and Collateral Purpose ~ Saji Kodwvath Associates is brought to the notice of the Court that a document is insufficiently stamped, the Court exercising its power under S. 33 of the Act has to pass an order at the first instance for impounding the document. Though there is a discretion vested in the Court to exercise powers under S. 33 and 34 of the Act, no Court can hold that it would wait till the document is tendered in evidence. In such circumstances, there may be chances of loss of revenue to the exchequer.” See Blog: No Adjudication Needed If Power of Attorney is Sufficiently Stamped Time of raising objection — when document is admitted The Apex Court had held in Javer Chand v. Pukhraj Surana, AIR 1961 SC 1655, as under: “Where 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 ILR 1953 Raj. 833 document is tendered in evidence. The Court has to judicially determine the matter as soon as the document is tendered in evidence and before it is marked as an exhibit in the case. ... Once a document has been marked as an exhibit in the case and the trial has proceeded alll along on the footing that the document was an exhibit in the case and has been used by the parties in examination and cross-examination of their witnesses, S. 36 of the Stamp Act comes into operation. Once a document has been admitted in evidence, as aforesaid, it is not open either to the Trial Court itself or to a Court of Appeal or revision to go behind that order. Such an order is not one of those judicial orders which are liable to be reviewed or revised by the same Court or a Court of superior jurisdiction.” However, it was observed by the Supreme Court in 2001 in Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2001 SC 1158, that that ‘it is an archaic practice that during the evidence collecting stage, whenever any objection is raised regarding admissibility of any material in evidence the court does not proceed further without passing order on such objection’. And the Court directed as under: “When so recast, the practice which can be a better substitute is this: Whenever an objection is raised during evidence taking stage regarding the admissibility of any material or item of oral evidence the trial court can make a note of such objection and mark the objected document tentatively as an exhibit in the case (or record the objected part of the oral evidence) subject to such objections to be decided at the last stage in the final judgment.” But, the subsequent decisions in R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder: AIR 2004 SC 4082; Dayamathi Bai (2004) 7 SCC 107 took a contra view. It was held that the ‘objection as to ‘mode of proof’ should be taken at the time of marking of the document as an exhibit, so that the defect can be cured by the affected party. Can Unregistered Agreement be admitted in a suit for specific It is held in S. Kaladevi Vs. V.R. Somasundaram, (2010) 5 SCC 401, that a document required to be registered, if unregistered, can be admitted in evidence as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance. It is followed in Ameer Minhaj v. Dierdre Elizabeth (Wright) Issar, 2018 (7) SCC 639. Relevant Provisions in the Registration Act: formance? Sec. 17(1) (g) and 49 are the relevant provisions. They read as under: hitpssincianavive:no/202-V08/14tunstampod-unregistered-documents-and-colateral-purposell~toxt=The power of impounding aexeresing is po. 5/109728722, 903 AM Unstamped & Unregistered Documents and Collateral Purpose ~ Saji Kodwvath Associates “47. Documents of which registration is compulsory: (1) The following documents shall be registered, ..., namely: (State Amendment -AP) Agreement of sale of immovable property of the value of one hundred rupee and upwards, (Similar State Amendment in Tamil Nadu and Kerala also.) “49. Effect of non-registration of documents required to be registered. No document required by section 17 .... to be registered shall- (a) affect any immovable property comprised therein (b). (c) be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power, unless it has been registered Provided that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by this Act or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), to be registered may be feceived as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 (3 of 1877), or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument.” ‘Collateral Purpose‘ under Sec, 49 Registration Act Section 49 of the Registration Act expressly states admissibility of unregistered documents in evidence for collateral purposes. The word ‘collateral’ signifies something beyond or parallel. According to Law Lexicon it means “that which is by the side, and not the direct line; that which is additional to or beyond a thing” (Amit Khanna. Vs Suchi Khanna, 2008-10 ADJ 426; 2009-75 AIILR 34; 2009-1 AWC 929). The Supreme Court observed in Sti Venkoba Rao Pawar v. Sri S. Chandrashekar, that the collateral purpose/transaction must be independent of, or divisible from the transaction which requires registration. In Yellapu Uma Maheswari v. Buddha Jagadheeswararao, (2015) 16 SCC 787, the Apex Court held that in the suit for declaration of title, an unregistered document can be relied upon for collateral purposes i.e. to prove his possession, payment of sale consideration and nature of possession; but not for primary purpose i.e. sale between the plaintiff and defendant or its terms. In S. Kaladevi Vs. V.R. Somasundaram, (2010) 5 SCC 401, Our Apex Court held as under: “11, The main provision in Section 49 provides that any document which is required to be registered, shall not affect any immovable property comprised therein nor such document shall be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property. The proviso, however, would show that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by the 1908 Act or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to be registered may be received as an evidence to the contract in a suit for specific performance or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be affected by registered instrument. By virtue of the proviso, therefore, an unregistered sale deed of an immovable property of the value of Rs.100 and more could be admitted in evidence hitpssincianavive:no/202-V08/1tunstampod-unregistered-documents-and-colateral-purposell~toxt=The power of impounding aexeresing is po. 6/109728722, 903 AM Unstamped & Unregistered Documents and Collateral Purpose ~ Saji Kodwvath Associates as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance of the contract. Such an unregistered sale deed can also be admitted in evidence as an evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered document. When an unregistered sale deed is tendered in evidence, not as evidence of a completed sale, but as proof of an oral agreement of sale, the deed can be received in evidence making an endorsement that itis received only as evidence of an oral agreement of sale under the proviso to Section 49 of the 1908, Act. 12, Recently in the case of K.B. Sahaand Sons Private Limited v. Development Consultant Limited (2008) 8 SCC 564, this Court noticed the following statement of Mulla in his Indian Registration Act, 7th Edition, at page 189: *......The High Courts of Calcutta, Bombay, Allahabad, Madras, Patna, Lahore, Assam, Nagpur, Pepsu, Rajasthan, Orissa, Rangoon and Jammu & Kashmir; the former Chief Court of Oudh; the Judicial Commissioner's Court at Peshawar, Ajmer and Himachal Pradesh and the Supreme Court have held that a document which requires registration under Section 17 and which is not admissible for want of registration to prove a gift or mortgage or sale or lease is nevertheless admissible to prove the character of the possession of the person who holds under it......” “This Court then culled out the following principles: (K.B. Saha case, SCC p.577, para 334) “4, A document required to be registered, if unregistered is not admissible into evidence under Section 49 of the Registration Act. 2, Such unregistered document can however be used as an evidence of collateral purpose as provided in the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act. 3. A collateral transaction must be independent of, or divisible from, the transaction to. effect which the law required registration. 4. A collateral transaction must be a transaction not itself required to be effected by a registered document, that is, a transaction creating, etc. any right, title or interest in immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards 5. If a document is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration, none of its terms can be admitted in evidence and that to use a document for the purpose of proving an important clause would not be using it as a collateral purpose. To the aforesaid principles, one more principle may be added, namely, that a document required to be registered, if unregistered, can be admitted in evidence as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance. Itis held in Ameer Minhaj v. Dierdre Elizabeth (Wright) Issar, 2018 (7) SCC 639, after quoting Sec. 17 Registration Act, as under: 10. On a plain reading of this provision, it is amply clear that the document containing contract to transfer the right, title or interest in an immovable property for consideration is required to be registered, if the party wants to rely on the same for the purposes of Section 53A of the 1882 Act to protect its possession over the stated property. If itis not a registered document, the only consequence provided in this provision is to declare that such document shall have no effect for the purposes of the said Section 53A of the 1882 Act. The issue, in our opinion, is no more res integra. In S. Kaladevi Vs. V.R. hitpssincianlavive:no/202-V08/1unstampod-unregistered-ocuments-and-colateral-purposell~toxt=The power of impounding aexeresing is po... 7/109728722, 903 AM Unstamped & Unregistered Documents ané Collateral Purpose ~ Sa Kodwvath Associates Somasundaram and Ors., (2010) 5 SCC 401, this Court has restated the legal position that when an unregistered sale deed is tendered in evidence, not as evidence of a completed sale, but as proof of an oral agreement of sale, the deed can be received as. evidence making an endorsement that it is received only as evidence of an oral agreement of sale under the proviso to Section 49 of the 1908 Act. After quoting Sec. 49 Registration Act it is observed by the Apex Court as under: 11. In the reported decision (.e. S. Kaladevi Vs. V.R. Somasundaram, (2010) 5 SCC 401), this Court has adverted to the principles delineated in K.B. Saha and Sons Private Limited v. Development Consultant Limited, (2008) 8 SCC 564 and has added one more principle thereto that a document is required to be registered, but if unregistered, can still be admitted as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance. In view of this exposition, the conclusion recorded by the High Court in the impugned judgment that the sale agreement dated 9th July, 2003 is inadmissible in evidence, will have to be understood to mean that the document though exhibited, will bear an endorsement that it is admissible only as evidence of the agreement to sell under the proviso to Section 49 of the 1908 Act and shall not have any effect for the purposes of Section 53A of the 1882 Act. In that, itis received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance and nothing more. The genuineness, validity and binding nature of the document or the fact that itis hit by the provisions of the 1882 Act or the 1899 Act, as the case may be, will have to be adjudicated at the appropriate stage as noted by the Trial Court after the parties adduce oral and documentary evidence.” Basis of the Erudite Decision In S Kaladevi (as stated in Para 11 of the decision) - Proviso in Section 49: “The proviso, however, would show that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and a document ‘required to be registered, but if unregistered’, may, still, be received as an evidence to the contract in a suit for specific performance . . Admitted as proof of an oral agreement of sale “Such an unregistered sale deed ... can be received in evidence ..... as evidence of an oral agreement of sale.” Unregistered Agreemet can be used in Specific performance Even After the Amendment on Sec. 17 InC. Ramya Vs, C. Ganambal, 2020-5 Mad LJ 416 the Madras Court pointed out that the Madras and Andhra High Courts took the view that even after the amendment on Sec. 17 (Agreement of sale of immovable property is a compulsorily registrable document), non-registration of an agreement of sale does not operate as a total bar to look into the contract, since proviso to Section 49 has carved out two exceptions — (i) a document ‘required to be registered, but if unregistered,’ may, still, be received as an evidence to the contract in a suit for specific performance, and {ii) it can be used for any ‘collateral purpose’. The following are the cases referred to by the Madras High Court: hitpssincianavive:no/202-V08/14tunstampod-unregistered-documents-and-colateral-purposall~toxt=The power of impounding aexeresing is po... 8/109728722, 903 AM Unstamped & Unregistered Documents and Collateral Purpose ~ Sa Kodwvath Associates ©. veeraiiani vs, IN, QUUTUATaIIUUTUTY, 2U19{0) LIL 90U, D. Devarajan v. Alphonsa Mary, 2019 (2) CTC 290; Minor Ravi Bharathi Vs. P. Balasubramani, 2014(3) MWN (Civil) 578 See blog: Unstamped & Unregistered Documents and Collateral Purpose Unregd. Partition Deed Ad je to see Severance & No Suit for Partition lie In Chinnapareddigari Pedda Muthyalareddy v. Chinnappareddigari Venkatareddy, AIR 1969 AP 242, unregistered partition lists were drawn up showing the properties allotted to the respective sharers. The lists were construed as partition deeds and were held by the trial Court to be inadmissible in evidence for proving division by metes and bounds. No oral evidence was held to be admissible under section 91 of the Evidence Act to prove the factum of partition or the nature of possession. In appeal the Andhra Pradesh High Court (FB-Jaganmohan Reddy, C.J.) held that the unregistered partition deed was admissible not for proving terms of the partition or as the source of title, but for the purpose of showing that there was a disruption (division/severance) in status and that no suit for partition would lie on the basis that the properties were still joint family properties. This decision is relied on in Booraswami v. Rajakannu, 1978-1 MLJ 248; and held further, relying on K, Kanna Reddy v. K. Venkata Reddy, AIR 1965 AP 274, that for determining status and the nature of the possession oral evidence was also admissible (for proving the factum of partition) Effect of Marking a Document Without Objection Unregistered (Compulsorily Registrable) Documents: With respect to unregistered documents it is held by the Apex Court in K.B. Saha and Sons Private Limited v. Development Consultant Ltd, (2008) 8 SCC 564: 2008 AIR SCW 4829, held as under: “34. From the principles laid down in the various decisions of this Court and the High Courts, as referred to here-in-above, it is evident that A document required to be registered is not admissible into evidence under section 49 of the Registration Act. Such unregistered document can however be used as an evidence of collateral purpose as provided in the Proviso to section 49 of the Registration Act. In the light of the Supreme Court decision in K.B. Saha and Sons Private Limited , it appears that the observation of the Karnataka High Court in Nanda Behera v. Akhsaya Kumar Behera, 2017AIR (CC) 1893, that once the Court, rightly or wrongly, decides to admit the documents in evidence, so far as the parties are concerned, the matter is closed, is not applicable to unregistered (compulsorily registrable) documents. However, the Calcutta High Court in Dipak Kumar Singh v. Park Street Properties (P) Limited, AIR 2014 Cal 167, distinguished K.B. Saha & Sons Private Limited, (2008) 8 ‘SCC 564, and other decisions saying that ‘the question of admissibility of a document, which had been admitted in evidence, was not taken up for consideration’ in those decisions. The High Court relied on Javer Chand v. Pukhraj Surana, AIR 1961 SC 1655 (question as to admissibility on the ground that it has not been stamped), which held that once a document had been marked as an exhibit in a case and the trial had proceeded all along on the footing that the document was an exhibit in the case and had been used hitpssincianavive:no/202-V08/1tunstampod-unregistered-documents-and-colateral-purposell~toxt=The power of impounding aexeresing is po. 910‘97322, 809 AM Unstamped & Unrgisteree Documents and Coateal Purpose Sa KoduvathAssocates by the parties in examination and cross-examination of their witnesses, it was not open either to the trial court itself or to a court of appeal or revision to go behind that order. The other decisions referred to and distinguished in Dipak Kumar Singh v. Park Street Properties (P) Limited are the following Ram Kumar Das v. Jagdish Chandra Deo, Dhabal Deb: AIR 1952 SC 23, Satish Chand Makhan v. Govardhan Das Byas: (1984) 1 SCC 369, Anthony v. K.C. Ittoop: (2000) 6 SCC 394, Surya Kumar Manji v. Trilochan Nath: AIR 1955 Cal 495, Kunju Kesavan v. M.M. Philip: AIR 1964 SC 164, Prasanta Ghosh v. Pushkar Kumar Ash: 2006 (2) CHN 277. See Blog: EFFECT OF MARKING DOCUMENTS WITHOUT OBJECTION See Blog: PRODUCTION, ADMISSIBILITY & PROOF OF DOCUMENTS hitpssincianavive:no/202"V08/1unstampod-unregistered-documants-and-colateral-purposell~toxt=The power of impounding aexersing is son0