THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2726 of 2010 Dated:02.09.2011 Between: Smt.Papani Satyavathi. …Petitioner and Gandreddi Govindu, And another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2726 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is the plaintiff. She instituted the suit for recovery of money on the basis of a mortgage deed dated 11.03.2000 allegedly executed by the respondents/defendants. They are disputing the execution of the document and also denying the liability. During the trial, the plaintiff tendered mortgage deed dated 11.03.2000 in evidence. On an objection raised, the trial Court declined to mark the document observing that “admittedly the said document is unregistered one and suit is for recovery of due amount basing on the said document. Hence, this document is filed for primary purpose not for collateral purpose. Hence this document cannot be marked as exhibit”. In this civil revision petition filed against the said order, the Counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of this Court in Umde Bhojram v Wadla Gangadhar[1] in support of the contention that when the suit is for recovery of money, even if the mortgage deed is not registered, there cannot be any objection for receiving and marking the same as evidence. Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, reads as under. 49. Effect of non-registration of documents required to be registered:- No document required by Section 17 or by any provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, to be registered shall - (a) affect any immovable property comprised therein, or (b) confer any power to adopt, or (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 to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument. The above provision bars the Court from receiving any document affecting immovable property which is not registered as required under Section 17 of the Registration Act. There are, however, three exceptions to this rule, namely, in a suit for specific performance as evidence of a contract; as evidence of part performance of a contract for the purpose of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882; and as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be affected by a registered instrument. Admittedly, the suit was instituted by the petitioner based on the mortgage deed dated 11.03.2000 which is not registered. When the suit itself is filed based on the said document, the plaintiff cannot turn around and make a plea that the contract is a composite contract, which is divisible – one for the purpose of evidencing the borrowing of money by the respondents and for the purpose of mortgaging the immovable property. The consideration for mortgage by the defendants is money allegedly advanced by the petitioner, and therefore, it cannot be said that the document only serves a collateral purpose. I n Umde Bhojram this Court observed that “so long as the document is not sought to be relied on as evidence of any right, title or interest to or in immovable property, there is nothing to prevent the document being received in evidence for other purpose.” Further, the Court held that an unregistered mortgage deed can be admitted in evidence for collateral purpose of recovery of money if there is a personal covenant to repay the debt, which is severable from other parts of the document. In this case, the facts are different. The respondents/defendants mortgaged the property as security for the loans allegedly advanced by the petitioner, and therefore, the covenant undertaking to pay the debt is not independent one. In that view of the matter, there is no error apparent on the face of the record. The Civil Revision Petition fails, and is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 02.09.2011 vs [1] 2004 (2) ALD 339