IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH [26TH] DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C R P No.733 of 2010 Between: Lagudu Venu (Died) & others … Petitioners And: Nandi Seetharam …. Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.733 of 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 17.09.2009 passed in ATC No.2 of 2001 on the file of the Principal District Munsif cum Special Officer under A.P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956, Vizianagaram, wherein, the disputed document was held inadmissible in evidence even for collateral purpose. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record. 3. The respondent herein filed petition ATC No.2 of 2001 against the petitioners for eviction under Andhra Tenancy Act. The petitioners herein resisted the same, inter-alia, on the ground that they are in possession of the property as tenants as usufructuary mortgagees. In support of their plea, they sought permission to receive the unregistered usufructuary mortgage deed dated 26.03.1976 through RW.1. The respondent herein objected for the same on the ground that the document is usufructuary mortgage, which requires compulsory registration and hence, it is inadmissible in evidence by virtue of the bar contained under Section 49 of the Registration Act, even if, necessary stamp duty and penalty is paid thereon. The petitioners, on the other hand, would contend that under the proviso to clause [c] of Section 49 of the Registration Act, the document though requires registration and though unregistered, still admissible in evidence for the collateral purpose showing the nature of their possession. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand contend that the purpose for which the document is sought to be exhibited by the petitioners is not collateral but the main purpose, namely, to prove their claim of possession as usufructuary mortgagees and thereby non-suit the respondent. 4. That the nature of the document dated 26.03.1976 as being usufructuary mortgage is not disputed. The said document requires compulsory registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act, but the same is not registered is also not disputed. It is also not disputed and is in fact, borne out by the certificate appended on the back of the document, that in another proceeding in OS No.35 of 1986 the said document was produced and impounded and the deficit stamp duty and penalty, totaling Rs.54/- was paid thereon and endorsement to that effect was made by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram on 30.01.1982. Notwithstanding the payment of the deficit stamp duty and penalty, the question, which still arises for consideration, is whether the document is admissible in evidence in view of the proviso to clause [c] of Section 49 of the Registration Act? 5. According to the petitioners, the document is sought to be produced only for collateral purpose of showing the nature of the possession. The respondent on the other hand contends that the purpose is not collateral, but is the main purpose of proving the nature of possession as usufructuary mortgage and not as tenants. The petition is filed for eviction on the ground that the petitioners are tenants. The petitioners are denying that they are tenants and are claiming that they are in possession as usufructuary mortgagees by virtue of disputed document dated 26.03.1976. By producing the document, the petitioners seek to rely upon its contents and establish their claim that they are in possession as usufructuary mortgagees, but not as tenants. It is specifically recited in the said document that the executant has borrowed a sum of Rs.6,400/- and executed a promissory note and in lieu of the interest, possession of the land mentioned in the schedule was delivered in favour of the promisee with a stipulation that as and when the entire debt is discharged, the possession would be delivered back to the executant. By relying upon the said recital in the document, the petitioners seek to establish their claim that they are in possession as usufructuary mortgagees and not as tenants. Thus, the transaction of usufructuary mortgage itself under which certain rights are created in favour of the petitioners is sought to be established by producing the disputed document. The question as to whether the petitioners are the tenants as alleged by the respondents or they are usufructuary mortgagees as claimed by them is a crucial one and answer thereto would decide the result of the main petition itself. It cannot, therefore, be said for a moment that the petitioners seek to rely upon the said document merely for a collateral purpose of showing nature of their possession. On the other hand, they seek to rely upon the said document to establish their very claim of possession as usufructuary mortgagees and vindicate their right as such created by the document itself. When the document purports to create or declare any right, title or interest, the same requires to be registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act. 6. It is well settled that collateral transaction must be independent transaction, unconnected with the transaction, which requires registration under law. It is equally well settled that when the document is inadmissible for want of registration, none of its terms can be relied upon and the party cannot be permitted to rely upon any of those clauses or terms pertaining to the transaction, which requires registration. When the petitioners seek to place reliance on such clause or term of the document and thereby establish their right or interest in the land as usufructuary mortgagees and assert their possession as such, it amounts to enforcing right or interest created or declared under the document and the same is impermissible, as the said transaction requires to be registered. The purpose for which the petitioners seek to rely upon the said document cannot, therefore, be termed as collateral purpose. On the other hand, the petitioners seek to establish their rights or interest in the property created or declared under the document and thereby non-suit the respondent. 7. In the circumstances, the document dated 26.03.1976, being unregistered is, therefore, inadmissible in evidence in view of the bar contained under Section 49 read with Section 17 of the Registration Act. The impugned order dated 17.09.2009 holding that the document cannot be marked even for collateral purpose does not, therefore, call for any interference by this Court, as the same does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. 8. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 26.03.2010 Bss