DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT,

AURANGABAD.

WORKSHOP ON

CIVIL

"Section 52 and 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act r/w Sec. 17 and 49
of the Registration Act, the effect of unregistered documents and
impounding of documents."

C R I M I N AL

"Recording of evidence and proving contents of electronic media with

relevant to provisions of Information Technology Act, Evidence Act and
Criminal Manual."

Held on 18th October, 2015

 INDEX

CIVIL
"Section 52 and 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act r/w Sec. 17 and
49 of the Registration Act, the effect of unregistered documents and
impounding of documents."
Sr.
Subtopics Page
No.
1 Effect of conveyance lis pendite.
2 Section 53 A : It's use as a shield or sword.
3 Admissibility of unregistered document.
4 Effect of non registration of -
i) Rent agreement. 1to26
ii) Leave and licence agreement for residential purpose.
iii)Leaveandlicenceagreementforcommercialpurpose.
5 Decree of Court : Is registration compulsory?
6 Documents insufficiently stamped : Is an inherent defect?
CRIMINAL
"Recording of evidence and proving contents of electronic media with
relevant to provisions of Information Technology Act, Evidence Act
and Criminal Manual."
Sr.
Subtopics Page
No.
1 Electronic evidence & its Admissibility.
2 Standard of proof about the authenticity and accuracy of
electronic evidence.
3 Electronic Records-Provisions under The Information
27to49
Technology Act, 2000.
4 Presumption as to electronic records.
5 Rules under Criminal Manual for production, use and
recording of tape recorded evidence.
 ...1...

"Section 52 and 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act r/w Sec. 17

and 49 of the Registration Act, the effect of unregistered
documents and impounding of documents."

EffectofConveyanceLisPendite

1. The doctrine of lis pendite is enacted in section 52 of the

TransferofPropertyAct. Thissectionisbasedonequityandgood
conscience.It isintendedtoprotectthepartiestolitigationagainst
alienationsbytheiropponentduringthependencyofthesuit.Inorder
toconstitutealispendens,followingelementsmustbepresent:

(i) TheremustbeasuitorproceedingpendinginaCourtof
competentjurisdiction.
(ii) Thesuitorproceedingmustnotbecollusive.
(iii) The litigation must be one in which right to immovable
propertyisdirectlyandspecificallyinquestion.
(iv) Theremustbeatransferoforotherwisedealingwiththe
propertyindisputebyanypartytothelitigation.
(v) Suchtransfermustaffecttherightsoftheotherpartythat
may ultimately accrue under the terms of the decree or
order.
 ...2...

2. AsperMaharashtraAmendmentifanoticeofthependencyof
suit or proceeding is registered under Section 18 of the Indian
RegistrationAct,1908,thepropertyafterthenoticeissoregistered
cannotbetransferredorotherwisedealtwithbyanypartytothesuit
or proceedingsoasto affect the rights of any other party thereto
underanydecreeororderwhichmaybemadetherein,exceptunder
theauthorityofthecourtandonsuchtermsasitmayimpose.
3. InHardevSinghV/sGurmailSing(dead)byL.Rs[(2007)2
SCC404] itisheldthat "Section52merelyprohibitsatransfer.It
doesnotstatethatthesamewouldresultinanillegality.Onlythe
purchaserduringthependencyofasuitwouldbeboundbytheresult
of thelitigation.The transaction, therefore, was not rendered void
and/orofnoeffect."

4. "lis pendens" itself is treated as constructive notice to a

purchaserthatheisboundbyadecreeinthependingsuit.Rule102of
Order21ofC.P.C.takesintoaccountthegroundrealityandrefusesto
extend helping hand to purchasers of property in respect of which
litigation is pending. It declares that if the resistance is caused or
obstructionisofferedbyatransfereependenteliteofthejudgment
debtor,hecannotseekbenefitofRule98or100ofOrder21.

5. In Amit Kumar Shah and others V/s Farida Khatoon and

others[AIR2005SC2209]itisheldthattransfereependentelitecan
beaddedasaproperpartyifhisinterestinthesubjectmatterofsuit
 ...3...

is substantial and not just peripheral. It is further held that a

transfereependentelitetotheextenthehasacquiredinterestfrom
defendantisvitallyinterestedinlitigation,when transferisofthe
entireinterestofdefendant,thelaterhavingnomoreinterestinthe
propertymaynotproperlydefendthesuit,hemaycolludewiththe
plaintiff.Hence,thoughtheplaintiffisundernoobligationtomakea
lispendens transferee aparty,underOrder22rule 10analienee
pendentelitemaybejoinedasparty.Thecourthasdiscretioninthe
matter which must be judicially exercised and an alienee would
ordinarilybejoinedasapartytoenablehimtoprotecthisinterests.

6. In M/s.KachhiPropertiesV/sGanpatraoShankaraoKadam
andothers[2010(5)ALLMR366]itisheldthatplaintiffneednotat
allworryabouttransferspendenteliteandso,occasionsforinvoking
powersunderOrder39,Rules1and2wouldariseonlyinrarecases
where the plaintiff can demonstrate that rule of lis pendens is
inadequatetoprotectplaintiff'sinterest.

7. InPralhadJagannathJawaleandotherV/sSitabaiChander
Nikam and others [2011(4) Mh.L.J.137] it is held that the
applicabilityofSection52ofT.P.Actwillnottakeawaypowerof
courttogranttemporaryinjunction.Wherethereisanapprehension
establishedthatdefendantmaycreatethirdpartyrightsandallthree
ingredientsaresatisfied,iftemporaryinjunctionisnotgranteditmay
 ...4...

result into multiplicity of proceedings in as much as the alienee

pendentelitemayapplyforimpleadement,whichwillresultindelay.

8. Theeffectoftheorderofprohibitoryinjunctionrestrainingthe
alienationduringthependencyofthesuitisthatanytransactionor
alienationmadeinviolationofthesaidorderisrenderedillegalandit
isnotransactionatall.Thishastobedistinguishedfromtheeffectof
Section52oftheActof1882,whichdoesnotattachanyillegalitytoa
transaction,whichhastakenplacependentelite. Thus,theorderof
prohibitoryinjunctiongrantsprotectionwhichisnotavailableunder
Section52intheeventofatransferpendingasuit.Moreover,the
partywhobreachestheorderoftemporaryinjunctionmayhavetoface
the drastic consequences provided in Rules 2A and 11 of Order
XXXIXofC.P.C.Theconsequencesareinthenatureofanorderof
detentionorstrikingoutthedefence.

9. Thus truescopeof section 52isthatitdoesnotpreventthe

vestingoftitleinatransfereeinasalependentelitebutonlymakesit
subjecttotherightsofotherpartiesasdecidedinthesuit.
 ...5...

Section53A:It'suseasaShieldorSword

1. Section 53A gives statutory recognition to what had hitherto

beenregardedastheDoctrineofPartPerformance,andappliedbythe
Indian Courts to cases where the transfer was not effected by a
registeredinstrument.Thegeneralgrounduponwhichthedoctrineis
based is prevention of fraud. It is clear that where one party has
executedhispartoftheagreementintheconfidence thattheother
partywoulddothesame,itisobviousthatifthatlattershouldrefuse,
itwouldbeafraudupontheformertoallowthisrefusaltoworktohis
prejudice.Whenatransfereehas,inthefaiththatthetransferwould
be completed according to law, taken possession, it would be
inequitable to allow the transferor to treat the transferee as a
trespasser.

2. Atthesametime,careistakeninframingSec.53Athatthelaw
ofregistrationisnotevaded,andthattheintroductionofthedoctrine
does not lend to perjuries and frauds which it is the object of the
doctrinetoprevent.

3. Thedoctrineofpartperformancecannotalsobeappliedtovoid
agreements. No amount of part performance can validate a void
agreement.
 ...6...

4. The defence of part performance, as embodied in S. 53A,

requiresthefollowingfourconditionstobefulfilled:

(i) Thereshouldbeacontracttotransfer,forconsideration,any
immovablepropertybyawritingsignedbythetransferororonhis
behalf,fromwhichthetermsnecessarytoconstitutethetransfercan
beascertainedwithreasonablecertainty.

Itwillbenoticedthatapersonwhohasenteredintoanoral
contract cannot, under this section, invoke the doctrine of part
performance. Theagreementmustbeinwriting,andsignedbythe
person (or hisagent) whom it issought tobind. Thus,wherethe
transferee under the contract seeks protection under S. 53A, the
contractmustbeinwriting.

Forthispurpose,anincomplete deedoftransfer,thoughnot
attested,isregardedasacontractinwriting. Butsuchadeedmust
havebeensignedbythetransferororhisagent.

(ii) Thetransfereeshould,inpartperformanceofthecontract,have
takenpossessionofthepropertyoranypartthereof,or,ifalreadyin
possession,shouldhavecontinuedinpossessioninpartperformance
ofthecontract,andshouldhavedonesomeactinfurtheranceofthe
contract.
 ...7...

(iii) Thetransfereeshouldhaveperformed,orshouldbewillingto
perform,hispartofthecontract.

(iv) Therightsofanyothersubsequenttransfereeforconsideration
withoutnoticeshouldnotbeaffected.

5. S.53Aisbasedonthefollowingthreemaximsofequity:
i) He who seeks equity must do equity.
ii) Equitytreatsthatasdonewhichoughttohavebeendone.
iii) Equitylookstotheintentratherthantotheform.

6. Therewasandisconsiderabledebatewhether,Section53Acan
beusedasshieldorsword.IncaseofDharmajiAliasBabanBajirao
vsJagannathShankarJadhavAIR1994Bom25 Hislordship has
observedthatoftenitissaidthattherightcannotbeusedasasword
andcanbeusedonlyasashield.Ifthisrightasashieldisavailableto
himasadefendant,Idonotseeanyjustificationforaviewthatit
wouldbedeniedtohimevenifbyforceofcircumstancesheasalaw
abidingcitizeniscompelledtoapproachtheCourtasaplaintifftouse
thatshield.Thetransfereeisentitledtoresistanyattemptonthepart
of the transferor to disturb transferee's lawful possession under the
contract of sale and his position either as a plaintiff or as a
defendantshouldmakenodifference.Contraryinterpretationviz.,
the transferee can use the shield only as a defendant and not as a
plaintiff,woulddefeattheveryspiritofS.53Aforitwillbepossible
foranoverpoweringtransferortoforciblydispossessthetransferee
 ...8...

evenagainstthecovenantsinthecontractandcompelhimtogotothe
Court as a plaintiff. As far as letter of law is concerned, there is
nothing which militates against the above object oriented
interpretation.

7. IncaseofBhimaSavalaramShindev.BhagujiAnnajiUnde,
1978MhLJ442,whereinithasbeenheldthattheplaintiffcouldfile
asuit toprotecthispossessionunderSection53Aandrestrainthe
defendantswhowerestrangersfromdisturbinghislawfulpossession.

8. Controversywhethersec53Acanbeusedasswordasshieldis
settorestInAIR2004Bom378,SadashivChanderBhamgareVs.
EknathPandharinathNangude, inwhichaFullBenchofBombay
HighCourthasheldthatwhenitissaidthatproposedtransfereein
possessioncanuseS.53Aasashield,butnotasasword,itmeansthat
hecanuseS.53Aeitherasaplaintifforasadefendanttoprotecthis
possession, but he cannot use S.53A either for getting title or for
gettingpossessionifheisnotactuallyinpossession.Inotherwords,
when the transfereeinpossession comes to the court as a plaintiff
seekingadecreeofperpetualinjunctionagainstthetransferor,heis
usingS.53Aasashieldtoprotecthispossession.Whiledecidingthe
abovecaseafullbenchofBombayhighcourtreiteratedtheviewsof
HonblesupremecourtechoedincaseofBiswabaniVsantoshkumar
AIR1980SC226
 ...9...

9. Section53AoftheTransferofPropertyAct,1882doesnot
conferanytitleonanyperson.Itprovidesthatatransfereewhoisin
possessionofthepropertyunderawritingcanprotecthispossession
andcancreateanestoppelagainstthevendortoenforcehisright,title
or interest in the suit property. Section 53A of the Act, affords
protectiontoatransfereeoncertainconditions,oneofwhichthat'the
transfereehasperformedoriswillingtoperformhispartofcontract.
ItiswellestablishedthattherightconferredbySection53Aisaright
availabletothedefendantonlytoprotecthispossessionandonthe
basisofthatsection,thedefendantcannotclaimanytitleanditmerely
operatesasabar.

ToconcludeitisobservedthatasperSec53Aistobeusedas
shieldandlegalconsequencesofusingthisprovisionasshieldis:

(a) limitationdoesnotbringinfirmitytotherightofatransferee
withouttitletoholdpossession,butitcripplestherightofvendorwith
titletorecoverpossession;

(b) possessionisoneoftheincidenceoftransferofinterestofa
transferor.Asaconsequence,transfereeholdspossessionirrespective
of transferof interestasawholeof thetransferor asenvisagedby
Section8oftheAct;
 ...10...

(c) asstatutorylimitationcannotbecarvedoutinSection53Aof
theAct,protectionavailabletotransfereethereonrunsindefinitely;

(d) shield becomes more effective than sword and equity then
prevailsoverlaw.

Admissibilityofunregistereddocument

1.TheHonorableApexCourtincaseofSurajLampandIndustries
Pvt.Ltd.versusStateofHaryanaandAnother, reportedin AIR
2012 SC206 stated the object of registration infollowingwords:
The Registration Act, 1908, was enacted with the intention of
providing orderliness, discipline and public notice in regard to
transactions relating to immovable property and protection from
fraudandforgeryofdocumentsoftransfer.

2. Rule3ofOrderXIIIoftheCodeofCivilProcedureprovides
thatcourtmayatanystageofthesuitrejectanydocumentwhichit
considersirrelevantorotherwiseinadmissible.Thus,lawrequiresthe
documentshouldnotonlyberelevantbutalsoadmissibleinevidence.
Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act requires compulsory
registration of documents which purports or operates to create,
declare,assign,limitorextinguishwhetherinpresentorinfutureany
 ...11...

right,titleorinterestwhethervestedorcontingentofthevlaueof
Rs.100/andupwardstoorinimmovableproperty. Section1Aof
Section 17 inserted by Act 48 of 2001 provides for compulsory
registrationofdocumentsexecutedonoraftertheAmendmentAct
containingcontractstotransferimmovablepropertyforconsideration
forthepurposeofSection53AofTransferofPropertyAct,1882.

3. Section 49 of Registration Act deals with effect of non

registrationofdocumentrequiredtoberegistered.ThisSectionbars
receptioninevidenceofadocumentoftransferwhichisrequiredtobe
registered compulsorily U/sec.17 of the Act, or under Transfer of
PropertyAct,but,notregistered.Itdoesnotlaydownanyprohibition
in respect of transfers required to be registered under other
enactments.

4. ProvisotoSection49declaresthat(1)anunregistereddocument
canbeusedasevidenceofacollateraltransactionnotrequiredtobe
registered. (2) To empower the Courts to admit unregistered
documentasevidenceofacontractinasuitforspecificperformance.
Thus,acompulsorilyregistrabledocumentthoughunregisteredand
inadmissible in evidence of a transaction affecting immovable
property,maybeadmittedasanevidenceofcollateralfactsorforany
collateral purpose, i.e. for any purpose other than that of creating,
declaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing right to immovable
 ...12...

property.

5. In Himendra Rasiklal Ghia V/s Subodh Modi, [2008(6)

Mh.L.J. 886] it is held that in case of unregistered document
requiringregistration,noevidenceofthetermcanbegiven.Merely
becausesuchdocumenthasbeenmarkedas'anExhibit',anobjection
toitsadmissibilityisnotexcluded.Theobjectiontotheadmissibility
of such evidence can always be taken at any stage of the suit. In
Anthonyvs.K.C.IttoopandSonsandothers,[AIR2000SC3523]
Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered collateral effects of
unregisteredleasedeed.Itwasheldthatsuchaleasedeedhadcaused
twoconsequences,(1)thatnoleaseexceedingoneyearwascreated
(2) instrument became useless so far as creation of the lease is
concerned.Nonethlessthepresumptionthattheleaseisnotexceeding
oneyearstoodcreatedbyconductofpartiesremainsunrebutted.

6. IncaseofBajajAutoLimitedVs.BehariLalKohli[(1989)3
SCR,730]itwasheldthatifadocumentpurportingtocreatealeaseis
inadmissibleinevidenceforwantofregistration,noneofthetermsof
theleasecanbeadmittedinevidenceandthattouseadocumentfor
thepurposeofprovinganimportantclauseintheleaseisnotusingit
asacollateralpurpose.

7. IncaseofNainaThakkarvs.AnnapurnaBuilders,[(2013)14
SCC 354] It is heldthat anarbitrationagreement does notrequire
 ...13...

registrationundertheRegistrationAct.Evenifitisfoundasoneofthe
clausesinacontractorinstrument,itisanindependentagreementto
refer the disputes to arbitration, which is independent of the main
contract or instrument. Therefore having regard to the proviso to
Section49oftheRegistrationActreadwithSection16(1)(a)ofthe
Act, an arbitration agreement in an unregistered but compulsorily
registrabledocumentcanbeacteduponandenforcedforthepurpose
ofdisputeresolutionbyarbitration.

8. The term collateral purpose is often used along with the

expressioncollateraltransaction.Whileexplainingthemeaningof
theexpressioncollateraltransaction,theHon'bleBombayHighCourt
inRamlaxmiVs.BankofBaroda,reportedin,AIR1953Bombay50,
heldthatsuchanexpressionisusednotinthesenseofanancillary
transactiontoaprincipaltransactionorasubsidiarytransactiontoa
maintransaction.Therootmeaningofthewordcollateralisrunning
together or running on parallel lines. The transaction as recorded
wouldbeaparticularorspecifictransaction.But,itwouldbepossible
to read in that transaction what may be called the purpose of the
transactionandwhatmaybecalledacollateralpurpose,thefulfillment
of that collateral purpose would bring in to existence a collateral
transaction,atransactionwhichmaybesaidtobeapartandparcelof
thetransactionbutnonethelessatransactionwhichrunstogetherwith
oronparallellineswiththesame.Themeaningofcollateralpurpose
mayvarydependingonthenatureoftheagreementordocument.For
 ...14...

instance,incaseofleasedeed,thetermcollateralpurposewould
meanprovingthenatureandcharacterofpossessionandthepurpose
of leasing out. Similarly, an unregistered sale deed would be
admissible in evidence for collateral purpose to limited extent of
showingpossessionofapartytosuit.However,thesimpledeviseof
callingitacollateralpurpose,apartycannotusetheunregistered
documentinanylegalproceedingstobringaboutindirectlytheeffect
ofwhichitwouldhavehaditregistered.

9. Unregistered and unstamped document : if a document

whichrequiresregistrationisunregisteredandisalsounstampedwhen
chargeablewithstampduty,itcannotbeadmittedinevidenceevenfor
collateralpurpose.Forexample,provingsignature.

Effectofnonregistrationof
i)Rentagreement.
ii)Leaveandlicenceagreementforresidentialpurpose.
iii)Leaveandlicenceagreementforcommercialpurpose.

1. InearlierRentActsrentagreementinwritingwasnotrequired.
But Section 55 (1) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999
providesthatanyagreementforLeaveandLicenseorlettingofany
premises entered into between the landlord and the tenant or the
licensee, should be in writing and should be registered under the
RegistrationAct,1908.
 ...15...

2. Section 55 (2) imposes the responsibility of getting such

agreementregisteredonthelandlord.Itfurtherprovidesthatinthe
absence of a written registered agreement, contention of the tenant
aboutthetermsandconditionsonwhichthepremiseshavebeengiven
eitheronleaveandlicenseorevenletoutshallprevail.

3. However,Section24(3),Explanation(b)ofMaharashtraRent
ControlAct,1999providesthatanagreementoflicenceinwriting
shallbeconclusiveevidenceofthefactstatedtherein.

4. Thus,aspersection55(2)Effectofnonregistrationoftenancy
orleaveandlicenceagreementaretwofold.
Firstlyundersubsection3,thelandlordwhofailstoregisterthe
agreementisliabletobeimprisonedwhichmaybethreemonthsor
withfinenotexceedingRs.5000/orwithboth.Inoldact,therewas
nosuchpenalprovision.Ithasbeenintroducedandprovidedunderthe
saidnewAct.
Secondlyeffectofnonregistrationofsuchanagreementisin
favour of the tenant. In absence of registered agreement, the
contention of the tenant about the terms and conditions subject to
whichpremiseshasbeengivenbylandlordonleaveandlicenceorlet
outbyhimwillprevailunlessthelandlordisabletoproveotherwise.
Thereforeincaseifthereisnoregisteredagreement,thenitisopento
thetenanttocontendwhetherthepremiseshasbeenlettohimorheis
alicensee.Sotheburdenofproofofthetermsandconditionsofthe
grantofthepremisesisonthelandlord.
 ...16...

5. In case of Shri Chandrashekhar Madhav Vaidya V/s Mrs.

AfiffaAltafSayedandothers[WritPetitionNo.6587of2009]and
inShriAmitB.DalalV/sShriRajeshK.Doctor[WritPetitionNo.
6587of2009]itisheldbyHon'bleBombayHighCourtthatSection
49 of Registration Act will not be applicable to document which
requiredtoberegisterundersection55ofMaharashtraRentControl
Act.Therefore,adocumentwhichrequiresregistrationundersection
55doesnotbecomeaninvaliddocument.

It is further held that the presumption under clause (b) of

explanationtosection24ofthesaidActisapplicableonlywhenan
application for eviction is filed relating to the premises given on
licenceforresidence.Inotherproceedings,thesaidpresumptionmay
not apply. Therefore, notwithstanding the nonregistration of an
agreementinwritingofleaveandlicenceinrespectofthepremises
given for residential use, when an application under section 24 is
made,theclause(b)willapplytosuchagreementanditwillnotbe
openforthelicenseetoleadanyevidencecontrarytothetermsand
conditionsprovidedinthesaidagreement.

6. In case of Parinita Chaudhary V/s Mohd. Husain A.

Furniturewala[2009(4)AIRBom.R.404]itisheldthatagreement
oflicenceinwritingshallbeconclusiveevidenceofthefactstated
therein
 ...17...

DecreeofCourt:IsRegistrationCompulsory?

1. In the case of Rani Hemanta Kumari devi vs. Midnapur

Jamindari Co. Ltd, the Hon'ble Privy Council has held that the
consent decree did not require registration even if it compromised
immovablepropertyotherthanthatwhichwasthesubjectmatterof
thesuitandthattheconsequencesprovidedbysection49oftheIndian
RegistrationActwouldnotfollow.Itwasinthelightofdecisionofthe
PrivyCouncilthat,byvirtueofsection10oftheTransferofProperty
(Amendment)supplementaryAct,1929clause(vi)ofsection17(2)of
RegistrationActwasamendedandreenactedinthepresentform.

2. Section17(2)(vi)oftheRegistrationActprovidesthat,any
decreeororderofacourt[exceptadecreeororderexpressedtobe
madeonacompromiseandcomprisingimmovablepropertyotherthan
thatwhichisthesubjectmatterofthesuitorproceedings.

3. InthecaseofBhoopSinghVs.RamSinghMajor,AIR1996,
SC196, held that while interpreting exception u/s 17(2)(vi) of the
RegistrationAct,1908observedthat, 'acompromisedecree,creating
right,titleorinterestinimmovablepropertyvaluingmorethanRs.
100/ infavour ofanypartytothesuit forthefirsttime,must be
registered'.
 ...18...

4. InthecaseofKRaghunandan&OrsVsAlihussain[(2008)
13SCC102]itisheldthat,Itmustbepointedoutthatadecreeor
orderofacourtdoesnotrequireregistrationifitisnotbasedona
compromiseonthegroundthatclauses(b)and(c)ofSection17ofthe
RegistrationActareattracted.Evenadecreeonacompromisedoes
notrequireregistrationifitdoesnottakeinpropertythatisnotthe
subjectmatterofthesuit.Adecreeororderofacourtisnormally
bindingonthosewhoarepartiestoitunlessitisshownbyresortto
Section 44 of the Evidence Act that the same is one without
jurisdictionorisvitiatedbyfraudorcollusionorthatitisavoidable
onanygroundknowntolaw.

Butotherwisethatdecreeisoperativeandgoingbytheplain
languageofSection17oftheRegistrationAct,particularly,inthe
contextofsubclause(vi)ofsubsection(2)inthebackgroundofthe
legislativehistory,itcannotbesaidthatadecreebasedonadmission
requiresregistration.Onthefactsofthatcase,itisseenthattheir
Lordshipsproceededonthebasisthatitwasthedecreeonadmission
thatcreatedthetitleforthefirsttime.Itisobviousthatitwastreated
asacasecomingunderSection17(1)(a)oftheAct,thoughthescope
ofSection17(2)(vi)oftheActwasdiscussedindetail.Butonthefacts
ofthiscase,aswehaveindicatedandasfoundbythecourts,itisnot
acaseofadecreecreatingforthefirsttimearight,titleorinterestin
thepresentplaintiffandhisbrother.Thepresentisacasewherethey
were putting forward in the suit a right based on an earlier
 ...19...

transactionofrelinquishmentorfamilyarrangementbywhichthey
hadacquiredinterestinthepropertyscheduledtothatplaint.Clearly,
Section17(1)(a)isnotattracted..."

5. Inthecaseof PhoolPattiandAnr. Vs.RamSingh(Dead)

through Lrs. and Anr., observing the inconsistency between the
decisioninBhoopSingh'scase(supra)andK.Raghunandan'scase
(supra)insofarastheinterpretationtotheexceptioninclause(vi)of
Section17(2)oftheRegistrationActisconcernedreferthematterto
largerBench.TheappealwasthenplacedbeforeaBenchofthree
learnedjudgesoftheSupremeCourtandbyanorderdated24thJuly,
2014 it was held, that there was no inconsistency between the
judgmentsdeliveredinthecases of(i) BhoopSinghv.RamSingh
Major&Ors.and(ii) Raghunandan&Orsv.AliHussainSabir&
Ors..

6. In the case of Sumintabai Ramkrushna Jadhav V/s

Rakhamabai Ramkrushna Jadhav and others ,AIR 1981 Bombay
52,theHonorableBombayHighCourtheldthatwheretherewasno
disputebetweenthepartiestothecompromise,theexemptionunder
Section17(2)(vi)fromregistrationisnotavailableandinabsenceof
registration, the compromise decree can not be relied upon as a
documentoftitle.
 ...20...

Summaryofthecaselawsabovementioned:
7. Thelegal positioninrespectof registrationofdecreecanbe
summarizedasbelow:
(1) Compromise decree if bona fide, in the sense that the
compromiseisnotadevicetoobviatepaymentof stampdutyand
frustratethelawofregistration,wouldnotrequireregistration,Ina
conversesituation.

(2)Ifthecompromisedecreeweretocreateforthefirsttime
right,titleorinterestinimmovablepropertyofthevalueofRs.100/
orupwardsinfavourofanypartytothesuit,thedecreewouldrequire
registration.

(3)Ifthedecreewerenottoattractanyoftheclausesofsub
section(1)oftheSec.17,thedecreewouldnotrequireregistration.

(4)Ifthedecreewerenottoembodythetermsofcompromise,
benefitfromthetermsofcompromisecannotbedeprived,evenifa
suitweretobedisposedofbecauseofthecompromiseinquestion.

(5)Ifthepropertydealtwithbythedecreebenotthesubject
matterofthesuitorproceedingsCl.(vi)ofsubsection(2)ofSect.17
wouldnotoperate,becauseoftheamendmentofthisclausebyAct21
of 1929, according to which the original clause would have been
attracted,evenifitweretoencompasspropertynotlitigated.
 ...21...

(6) If even though a part of the compromise related to the

propertywhichwasbeyondthesubjectmatterofthesuit,hadbeen
incorporatedinthecompromisedecreeandalthoughnotbeingapart
oftheoperativeportionthereofdidnotrequireregistration.

(7)Ifthedecreeororderreferredtothepropertyotherthanthat
which was the subjectmatter of the suit or proceeding, it would
requireregistration.

8. Thus, in view of the provisions of section 17, subsection 2

clause (vi)of the Registration Act 1908and theabove decisions of
Hon'bleApexcourt,adecreeororderofcourtneednotberegistered
onthebasisthatitcomeswithinthepurviewofSection17(1)(b)or
17(1)(c) of the Act as an instrument purporting to or operating to
create,declare,assign,limitorextinguishanyright,titleorinterestin
immovableproperty.Itmayfurtherbeseenthatacompromisedecree
alsodoesnotrequireregistrationintermsofclauses(b)and(c)ofsub
section(1)ofSection17oftheRegistrationActunlessthatdecree
takes in immovable property valued above Rs.100/, that is not a
subject matter of the suit or the proceeding giving rise to the
compromisedecree.
 ...22...

Documentsinsufficientlystamped:Isaninherentdefect?

1. Section33ofTheMaharashtraStampAct,1958castdutyonthe
personhavingauthoritytoreceiveevidencebylaworbyconsentof
partiestoimpoundthedocumentwhethervalidornotifhefinditis
notdulystamped. Thepersonhavingauthoritytoreceiveevidence
would be civil judge, members and officers of judicial and quasi
judicialtribunalandarbitrators.

2. Magistrateorjudgeofacriminalcourthasdiscretiontoexercise
thepowerofimpoundingexceptwhentheproceedingisunderChapter
IXwhichdealswithmaintenanceproceedingsandPartDofChapter
XofCr.P.C.whichdealswithdisputeastoimmovablepropertiesand
aremoreorlessmattersofcivilnature.

3. Section34speaksofadocumentnotdulystampedshallnotbe
admittedinevidenceandacteduponunless deficitstampdutyand
penaltyfromthedateofexecutionofdocumentispaid.Butthereare
fourexceptionstothisgeneralrulewhichareI)Notdulystamped
instrumentmaybeproducedinevidenceinanycriminalproceeding
except proceeding under Chapter IX or Part D of Chapter X of
Cr.P.C.,(ii)ifithasbeenexecutedbyoronbehalfoftheGovernment,
(iii)whereitiscertifiedbytheCollectorasdulystamped,and(iv)a
copyofanyinstrumentoranoraladmissionofthecontentsofany
instrumentmaybeadmitted,ifstampdutyoradeficientportionofthe
stampdutyandpenaltyispaid.
 ...23...

4. Section35providesthatonceaninstrumentwhichisnotduly
stampedisadmittedinevidence,suchadmissionshallnot,exceptas
providedinsection58,becalledinquestionatanystageofthesame
suitorproceedingonthegroundthattheinstrumenthasnotbeenduly
stamped.

5. In Santosh Anant Raut V/s Pukharaj Rathod [2010(4)

Mh.L.J.22]itisheldthat,Whenadocumentissoughttobetendered
inevidenceisfoundtobenotsufficientlystamped,itisthedutyofthe
courttoimpounditinaccordancewithSection33theBombayStamp
Act.Nopowerisconferredonthecourttodeterminethestampduty
chargeableinrespectofanyinstrument.Saidpowerisvestedinthe
Collector.JurisdictionoftheCivilCourtisconfinedtorecordinga
findingonthequestionwhetheraninstrumentisdulystamped.Civil
Court can't determine the stamp duty payable on a particular
instrument. After impounding the document the court is under an
obligationtosendatruecopyofthesaiddocumenttotheadjudication
oftheCollectorinaccordancewithsubsection(3)ofSection32Aof
ThesaidAct. OnlyafteradjudicationismadebytheCollectorthe
partyrelyinguponthedocumentwillhavetopaydeficitstampduty
and penalty. After a certificate issued by the Collector regarding
compliancewiththerequirementofpaymentofdeficitstampdutyand
penaltyCivilCourtcanexercisepowerunderproviso(a)toSection
34 of the Said Act. Thereafter the document can be admitted in
evidenceifthesameisprovedandifitisotherwiseadmissiblein
 ...24...

evidence.Thereisnothingwrongifapartyrelyinguponadocument
applies for impounding his own document to enable the court to
exercisepowerunderproviso(a)toSection34.

6. InZaverChandV/sPukhrajSurana,[AIR1961SC1655]itis
held'thattheobjectionregardingadmissibilityofinstrumentnotduly
stamped has to be decided there and then when the document is
tenderedinevidenceandbeforeitismarkedasanExhibitinthecase.
OncetheCourtrightlyorwronglydecidestoadmitthedocumentin
evidence,thematterisclosedsofarasthepartiesareconcerned.'

7. Thusinsufficientlystampeddocumentisnotaninherentdefect
asonceitisadmittedinevidenceoracteduponnoobjectioninthis
regardmayberaisedlateron.

8. In MarineContainerServices(I)V/sRajeshDhirajlalVora,
[(2002)104BOMLR273]itisheldthatatthestageofconsidering
the application for interim relief Court can not be stopped from
consideringthedocumentinsufficientlystamped.

9. PeacebirdPremisesCoOp.SocietyLtd.BombayV/sCollector
ofStampsofMumbaiandothers[2008(1)Mah.L.J.865]Conveyance
definedundersection2(g)ofBombayStampActmeansandincludes
consentdecreewhichfulfilsalltherequisitesofconferringright,title
andinterestinfavourofthevendeesandstampdutyunderEntry25of
ScheduleIispayableonsuchconsentdecree.
 ...25...

10. In JaysinghV/sSambhaji[2013(3)Mh.L.J.433],itisheld
that,inasuitforspecificperformanceofagreementstoaconveyance
attractingstampduty,determiningfactorhastobethedocumentitself
claimedinthesuit.Wherethevendoragreedtohandoverpossession
oflandinquestionintheagreementtosellasandwhencalledupon
by vendee prior to sale deed being executed, the agreement was
requiredtobestampedonthebasisthatitwasaconveyance.

11. TheHon'bleBombayHighCourtin GayabaiHemlalJadhav

V/sHiramans/oRamaChavanandanother[2011(4)Mh.L.J.798]
has held that, Photocopy of the document is not an instrument
withinthemeaningofsection2(14)ofIndianStampAct,1899or
section 2 (1) of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 The provisions of
impounding any instrument chargeable with duty cannot be made
applicableinrespectofcopyofthedocument.

12. InJupudiKesavaRaoV/sPulavarthiVenkataSubbarao[AIR
1971SC1070] itisheldthat "ThefirstlimbofSection35clearly
shutsoutfromevidenceanyinstrumentchargeablewithdutyunlessit
is duly stamped. The second limb of the section which relates to
acting upon the instrument will obviously shut out any secondary
evidenceofsuchinstrument,for,allowingsuchevidencetobeletin
whentheoriginaladmittedlychargeablewithdutywasnotstampedor
insufficientlystamped,wouldhavethe effectofthedocumentbeing
"acted upon" by the person having by law or authority to receive
 ...26...

evidence.Proviso(a)isapplicableonlywhentheoriginalinstrument
isactuallybeforethecourtoflawandthedeficiencyinstampwith
penalty is paid by the party seeking to rely upon the document.
Clearly, secondary evidence either by way of oral evidence of the
contents of the unstamped document or the copy of it covered by
section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act would not fulfill the
requirements of the proviso which enjoins upon the authority to
receivenothinginevidenceexcepttheinstrumentitself.Thereisno
scopeforinclusionofacopyofadocumentasaninstrumentforthe
purpose of the Stamp Act. If Section 35 only deals with original
instrumentsandnotcopies,section36cannotbesointerpretedsoas
toallowsecondaryevidenceofaninstrumenttohaveitsbenefit.