1

Subject : Various provisions relating to execution and

registration of documents.

Sub­Topics.

1. Meaning of execution.

2. Meaning of attestation.

3. Categories of documents requiring compulsory

registration.

4. Purpose of registration of documents.

5. Admissibility of unregistered documents, which

requires compulsory registration.

6. Evidentiary value of insufficiently stamped

documents.

7. Presumptive value of registered document.

8. Certified copies of registered document.

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

Introduction :­

The Registration Act is one of the oldest legislations made

during pre­Independence period that are being implemented in
almost all parts of the country without altering substantially for
more than last 100 years. The Registration Act, 1908 is having
object of proper recording and registration of documents, which
 2

give them more authenticity. Registration means recording of the

contents of a document with a Registering Officer and
preservation of copies of original documents. Documents are
registered for the purpose of conservation of evidence, assurance
of title, publicity of documents and prevention of fraud.

The transfer of a immovable property is a major cause

of litigation. Many times, the dispute arises due to the fact that
the document, by which title is transferred, was not registered/
not sufficiently stamped. Hence, the Registration Act and
Transfer of property Act deals with the manner in which the title
in the property can be transffered. An important aspect of
execution of a document is attestation of the document.
Similarly, section 17 of Registration Act provides the list of
documents which require compulsory registration. The paper also
deals with the purpose of registration of documents, evidentiary
value of unregistered document/insuffiently stamped document
and the effect of non­registration of documents which require
registration .

1. Meaning of execution.

The Oxford dictionary meaning of word 'Execution' is the

action of executing a plan, order, or a legal instrument. Execution
means the accomplishment of a thing, the completion of an act or
instrument. Hence, the plain meaning of the word 'Execution' is
the process of completion or accomplishment of an act. Here, we
have to see the meaning of the term 'execution' with regard to the
documents in legal sense.
 3

A reading of Section 68 of Evidence Act will show that

`attestation' and `execution' are two different acts one following
the other. There can be no valid execution of a document which,
under the law, is required to be attested without the proof of its
due attestation and if due attestation is not proved, the fact of
execution is of no avail.

It is thus a settled legal position that merely admitting

signature on the document does not amount to admission of
execution of a document.

In law, the term 'execution' has not been defined

specifically. In normal parlance, the execution of a document
means signing the same. It has been observed in the case of
Bhavanji v. Devji(ILR(1894) 19 Bom 635 that, execution means
signing, sealing and delivery of a document. The term may be
defined as a formal completion of a deed. It is the last act or
series of acts which complete it. It has been held in State of
Orissa v. Khetra Mohan Singh(AIR 1965 ORISSA 126) that,
the execution of document means that the executant must have
signed or put his thumb impression, only after the contents of the
document have been fully stated and read by the executant
before he put his signature thereon. Mere admission of the initial
by the executent would not tantamount to an admission of the
document.

In Dattatraya vs. Rangnath Gopalrao Kavthekar, AIR

1971 Supreme Court 2548, it was observed that ordinarily, no
one is expected to sign a document without knowing its contents,
but if it is pleaded that the party who signed the document did
 4

not know the contents of document then, it may, in certain

circumstances, necessary for the party seeking to prove the
document, to place material before the court, to satisfy it that,
the party who signed the document had the knowledge of its
contents.

Execution of a document is to be proved by admissible

evidence i.e.

1. admission, by a signatory to the document, of its

execution ( Section 58 of Indian Evidence Act.).
2. Examination of the scribe (Section 67).
3. Examination of an attesting witness (Sections 67 &
68).
4. By proof of signature and handwriting of a person,
who is alleged to have signed or written the
document produced (Section 67)
5. By proof of digital signature (Section 67­A).
6. By opinion as to, or comparison of, signature, writing
or seal with others admitted or proved documents.
(Section 45)
7. Proof as to verification of digital signature (Sec.73A).

2. Meaning of attestation.

According to section 3 of Transfer of Property Act 1882,

term “attested”, in relation to an instrument, means and shall be
deemed always to have meant attested by two or more witnesses,
each of whom has seen the executant sign or affix his mark to the
instrument, or has seen some other person sign the instrument in
 5

the presence and by the directions of the executant, or has

received from the executant, a personal acknowledgment of his
signature or mark, or of the signature of such other person, and
each of whom has signed the instrument in the presence of
executant; but it shall not be necessary that more than one of
such witnesses shall have been present at the same time, and no
particular form of attestation shall be necessary.

It is essential that the witness should have put his signature

“ammo attestandi” i.e. for the purpose of attesting that he has
seen the executant sign or has received from him a personal
acknowledgement of his signature. If a person puts his signature
on the document for some other purpose, e.g to certify that he is
scribe or an identifier or a registering officer, he is not an
attesting witness.(M.L.Abdul Sahib vs H B Venkata Sastri AIR
1969 SC 1147.)

In Ishwar Das Jain Vs. Sohan Lal AIR 2000 Supreme

Court 426 it was held that, the mode of proof of document
required to be attested is contained in sections 68 to 71 of the
Evidence Act. Under Section 68, if the execution of document
requires to be attested is to be proved, it will be necessary to call
an attesting witness, if alive and subject to the process of the
court and is capable of giving evidence. But in case the
document is registered, then except in the case of a will, it is not
necessary to call an attesting witness, unless the execution has
been specifically denied by the person by whom it purports to
have been executed.

The attestor must be independent. In case of Kumar

 6

Harish Chandra Singh Deo and another Vs. Bansidhar

Mohanty and others AIR 1965 Supreme Court 1738, it is held
that a party to an instrument cannot be a valid attesting witness,
as such, party cannot attest its own signature.

3. Categories of documents requiring compulsory

registration.

Section 17 of Registration Act 1908 gives the list of

documents requiring compulsory registration. It runs thus­

(1) The following documents shall be registered, if the

property to which they relate is situate in a district in which, and
if they have been executed on or after the date on which, Act
No.XVI of 1864, or the Indian Registration Act, 1866, or the
Indian Registration Act, 1871, or the Indian Registration Act,
1887 or this Act came or comes into force, namely :­

a) instruments of gift of immovable property;

b) other non­testamentary instruments which purport or

operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in
present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or
contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees, and upwards, to
or in immovable property;

c) non­testamentary instruments which acknowledge the

receipt or payment of any consideration on account of the
creation, declaration, assignment, limitation or extinction of any
such right, title or interest; and

d) leases of immovable property from year to year, or for

 7

any term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent;

(e) non­testamentary instruments transferring or assigning

any decree or order of a court or any award when such decree or
order or award purports or operates to create, declare, assign
limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right,
title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one
hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property,

Provided that the State Government may, by order

published in the Official Gazette, exempt from the operation of
this sub­section any leases executed in any district, or part of a
district, the terms granted by which do not exceed five years and
the annual rent reserved by which do not exceed fifty rupees.

Sub section 2 gives the list of documents which do not

require registration.

As per section 3 of Registration(Maharashtra Amendment )

Act 2010 following clauses are added after clause (e) of section
17(1) of the Registeration Act providing for registeration of
documents mentioned therein,

(f) Agreement relating to deposit of title deeds, where such

deposit has been made by way of security for the repayment of a
loan or an existing or future debt

(g) sale certificate issued by competent officer or authority

under any recovery Act

(h) irrevocable power of attorney relating to transfer of

immovable property in anyway, executed on or after the
 8

commencement of Registration(Maharashtra Amendment) Act

2010.

Section 17 (1) (1A) : The documents containing

contracts to transfer for consideration, any immovable property
for the purpose of section 53­A of the transfer of Property Act,
1882 shall be registered if they have been executed on or after
the commencement of the registration and other related law
(Amendment) Act, 2001, and if such documents are not
registered on or after such commencement then, they shall have
no effect for the purposes of the said Section 53­A.

The documents registrable under the Act fall under three

categories. In the first category, documents relating to
transactions which, according to the substantive law, can be
effected only by registered documents. The Registration Act does
not lay down that any transaction, in order to be valid, must be
effected by a registered instrument only. What it provides is that
when there is a written instrument evidencing a transaction, it
must, in certain cases, be registered. Sale deeds, Mortgages,
Exchanges, Gifts and Leases under Transfer of Property Act, 1882
are required to be effected only by registered instruments subject
to an exception in case of some transactions relating to
immovable property of less than ₹ 100/­ in value. Under section
17 of the Registration Act, the list of compulsorily registrable
documents are given.

Second category: Certain transactions can be effected

without writing, i.e. partitions, releases, settlements etc. But, if
the transaction is evidenced by a writing and relates to
 9

immovable property, the Registration Act steps in and clauses (b)

and (c) of Section 17(1) of said Act require registration of such
documents, subject to the exception specified in sub­section 2 of
that section. If an authority to adopt is conferred in writing, other
than a Will, it is also required to be registered vide section 17(3).

Third category: It is open to the parties, if they so choose,

to get certain documents registered at their option and this is
permitted by section 18. ‘Will’ need not be registered but it is
open to the parties to get it registered under the third category.

In Naginbhai P. Desai V/s Taraben A. Sheth, A I R 2003

Bom. 192 it is held that the agreement for sale cannot be treated
as conveyance for the purpose of Indian Registration Act, 1908.
There is no force in contention that agreement for sale was
compulsorily registrable under Clause (b) to sub­section (1) of
Section 17 of the Registration Act.

Power of Attorney :

In Syed Abdul Khader V/s Rami Reddy, (1980) 2 S C C 601,

it is held that power of attorney need not be compulsorily
registered.

In Kashi Natsha V/s Narsingsha, A I R 1961 S C 1077 it is

held that record of partition already made earlier needs no
registration compulsorily.

The Registration (Maharashtra amendment) Act, 2010

which came into force w.e.f. 01­03­2013 has inserted section
89(A) in the Registration Act. It provides that (1) every court
passing­ (a) any decree or order creating, declaring, transferring,
 10

limiting or extinguishing any right, title or interest to or in

immovable property in favour of any person, or (b) an order for
interim attachment or attachment of immovable property or for
the release of any immovable property from such attachment,
shall, in accordance with the rules made in this behalf, send a
copy of such decree or order together with a memorandum
describing the property as far as may be practicable, in the
manner required by section 21, to the registering officer within
the local limits of whose jurisdiction, the whole or any part of the
immovable property comprised in such decree or order is
situated, and such officer shall file the copy of the memorandum
in his Book No.1.

Due to this amended section, (i) any decree or order

effecting an immovable property or (ii) any order of attachment
of immovable property or release from any such attachment, the
court passing such decree/order is required to send a copy of
such decree/order along with a memorandum describing
attached/affected released property, to the registering officer
(having jurisdiction over the immovable property ). This would
mean that all ad­interim and interim orders of attachment by any
of the competent courts with respect to any immovable property
would be required to be registered.

In Bhoopsing Vs. Ramsing Major AIR 1996 Supreme

Court 196 it was held that “ a compromise decree, creating,
right, title or interest in immovable property valuing more than
Rs. 100/­ in favour of any party to the suit for the first time must
be registered.
 11

4. Purpose of registration of documents :

According to section 3 explanation 1 of Transfer of

Property Act 1882, where any transaction relating to immovable
property is required by law to be and has been effected by a
registered instrument, any person acquiring such property or any
part of, or share or interest in, such property shall be deemed to
be have notice of such instrument as from the date of registration
or, where the property is not all situated in one sub­district, or
where the registered instrument has been registered under sub­
section (2) of section 30 of Indian Registration Act 1908, from
the earliest date on which any memorandum of such registered
instrument has been filed by any Sub­Registrar within whose sub­
district any part of the property which is being acquired, or of the
property wherein a share or interest is being acquired, is
situated .

The purposes of Registration Act are as follows:

i) To provide information to people, who may deal with

property, as to the nature and extent of the rights which
persons may have affecting that property.
ii) To enable people to find out whether any particular piece
of property, with which they may be concerned, has been
made subject to some particular legal obligation.

iii) To prevent fraud.

iv) To prevent forgeries and procurement of conveyances,

mortgages by fraud or undue influence.

v) The real purpose of registration is to secure that every

 12

person dealing with property, where such dealings require

registration, may rely with confidence upon the statements
contained in the register as full and complete account of all
transactions by which his title may be affected, unless indeed he
has actual notice of some unregistered transaction which may be
valid apart from registration.

The Honble Apex Court in Suraj Lamp vs State of

Haryana, AIR 2012 SC 206, in para 10, has made certain
observations which deal with purpose of registration of
documents. Those observations are as follows:

“ 10. In the earlier order dated 15.5.2009, the objects and benefits
of registration was explained and we extract them for ready
reference:

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
fraud and forgery of documents of transfer. This is achieved by
requiring compulsory registration of certain types of documents and
providing for consequences of non­registration.

Section 17 of the Registration Act clearly provides that any

document (other than testamentary instruments) which purports or
operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish whether in
present or in future "any right, title or interest" whether vested or
contingent of the value of Rs.100 and upwards to or in immovable
property shall be registered..

Section 49 of the said Act provides that no document required

 13

by Section 17 to be registered shall, affect any immovable property

comprised therein or received as evidence of any transaction
affecting such property, unless it has been registered. Registration of
a document gives notice to the world that such a document has been
executed.

Registration provides safety and security to transactions

relating to immovable property, even if the document is lost or
destroyed. It gives publicity and public exposure to documents
thereby preventing forgeries and frauds in regard to transactions
and execution of documents. Registration provides information to
people who may deal with a property, as to the nature and extent of
the rights which persons may have, affecting that property. In other
words, it enables people to find out whether any particular property
with which they are concerned, has been subjected to any legal
obligation or liability and who is or are the person/s presently
having right, title, and interest in the property. It gives solemnity of
form and perpetuate documents which are of legal importance or
relevance by recording them, where people may see the record and
enquire and ascertain what the particulars are and as far as land is
concerned what obligations exist with regard to them. It ensures
that every person dealing with immovable property can rely with
confidence upon the statements contained in the registers
(maintained under the said Act) as a full and complete account of
all transactions by which the title to the property may be affected
and secure extracts/copies duly certified.

Registration of documents makes the process of verification

and certification of title easier and simpler. It reduces disputes and
 14

litigations to a large extent.”

5. Admissibility of unregistered documents which require

compulsory registration :

Order XIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides

that, the court may, at any stage of the suit, reject any
document which it considers irrelevant or otherwise
inadmissible.

The main provision in section 49 of the Registration Act

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 would show that an
unregistered document affecting immovable property and
required by the Registration Act or the Transfer of Property Act,
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. Therefore, an unregistered sale deed of an
immovable property of value of Rs.100/­ and more could be
admitted in evidence as evidence of any collateral purpose.

In K.B. Saha and Sons Pvt. Ltd. vs. Development

Consultant, 2008 8 SCC 564, Hon'ble Apex Court, from the
principles laid down in the various decisions, culled out following
principles:­

1. A document required to be registered, if unregistered, is not

admissible in evidence under Section 49 of the Registration
Act.
 15

2. Such unregistered document can 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 of 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 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.

In case of Himendra Rasiklal Ghia V/s Subodh Modi,

2008(6) Mh.L.J. 886 it is held that in case of unregistered
document which requires compulsory registration is inadmissible
in evidence.

In case of Bajaj Auto Limited Vs Behari Lal Kohli (1989)

3 SCR, 730 it was held that, if a document purporting to create a
lease is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration, none of
the terms of the lease can be admitted in evidence and that to use
a document for the purpose of proving an important clause in the
lease is not using it as collateral purpose.
 16

In Anthony vs. K.C. Ittoop and Sons and others, AIR

2000 SC 3523, Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered collateral
effects of unregistered lease deed. It was held that such a lease
deed had caused two consequences, (1) that no lease exceeding
one year was created, (2) instrument became useless so far as
creation of the lease was concerned. Nonethless, the presumption
that the lease is not exceeding one year stood created by conduct
of parties remains unrebutted.

A relinquishment deed is compulsorily registerable

document U/sec. 17(b) of Registration Act,1908 and hence the
unregistered document is not admissible in evidence. S.17(1)(b)
of the Registration Act mandates that any document which has
the effect of creating and taking away the rights in respect of an
immovable property must be registered and S.49 of the Act
imposes bar on the admissibility of an unregistered document
and deals with the documents that are required to be registered
u/sec. 17 of the Act.

Section 49 of Registration Act provides effect of non

registration of document required to be compulsorily registered.
It provides for using such unregistered document for collateral
purpose.

In Ramlaxmi Vs Bank of Baroda, AIR 1953 Bombay 50, it

was held that collateral transaction means ancillary or subsidiary
transaction to main or principal transaction and collateral
purpose means bringing in existence collateral transaction.

In short, a document required to be registered is not

 17

admissible in evidence even under section 49 of the Registration

Act. Such unregistered document can however be used as an
evidence of collateral purpose transacting collateral transactions
which are independent, divisible and which need no registration.

6. Evidentiary value of insufficiently stamped

documents:

The object of Bombay/Maharashtra Stamp Act 1958 is to

collect stamp duty on an instruments which are made chargeable
with duty.

Impound means to keep in custody of the law. Section 33

provides for examination and impounding of documents.
According to said section, every person having by law or consent
of parties authority to receive evidence, and every person in­
charge of a public office, except an officer of police, before whom
any instrument, chargeable, in his opinion, with duty, is
produced or comes in the performance in his functions shall, if it
appears to him that such instrument is not duly stamped,
impound the same. On impounding and payment of insufficient
stamp with penalty the document can be admitted in evidence.

In Thippareddy Obulamma vs. Balu Narasimhulu,

AIR 2003 A.P. 525, following propositions of law are stated with
regard to unstamped or understamped or unregistered
documents.­

a] An unstamped or insufficiently stamped document is

inadmissible in evidence ;

b] As per proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act,

 18

an unregistered document affecting immovable property and

required to be registered can be received as evidence either in
cases referred to therein or for collateral transaction.

c] An unstamped or insufficiently stamped document

coupled with the infirmity of being unregistered can be received
as evidence for a collateral purpose, provided the first defect
under the Stamp Act is corrected. In other words, on unstamped
or insufficiently stamped document, after being duly impounded
under the law, can be relied upon for collateral purpose.
Aforesaid observations are also found in Pandurang
Dharmadhikari vs. Kusumtai 2014 6 BomCR 643 .

However, in another decision reported in the matter of

Mahendra Madhav vs. Kailas Bhauraoji, 2014 (5) Mah L.J.
807, having referred to Sec. 36 of the Bombay Stamps Act, 1958,
it was held that once the insufficiently stamped document has
been admitted in evidence; admission cannot be called in
question at any stage of the same suit or proceeding on the
ground that instrument has not been duly stamped.

In case of Conwood Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Namdeo

Pandurang Panchal (2005) 107 Bombay Law Reported 319 it
was observed that sub­section 1 of section 37 provides that, the
court has power to admit the document in evidence if the party
producing the same would pay the stamp duty together with a
penalty as provided by section 34 or duty as provided by section
36. On compliance, it is requisite to forward a copy of the
document along with the amount collected to the Collector. But
if party refuses to pay the aforesaid amount, the court has to
 19

impound the document and forward the same to the Collector as

provided under section 37 of said act. On receipt of the
document, it is for the Collector to make inquiry and do the
needful.

In case of Yellapu Uma Maheshwari and another Vs.

Budha Jagadheeswarao and others 2015 STPL (Web) 2514
S.C. (D.B.) it was held that an unregistered document can be
relied upon for collateral purpose i.e. severance of title, nature of
possession of various shares etc on payment of requisite stamp
duty and the penalty.

However, photocopy of the document, though offered to be

impounded with showing readines to pay the deficit and penalty,
it cannot be termed as an instrument and section 33 of the Stamp
Act cannot be made applicable to the same. [Gayabai Vs. Hiralal
2011 (4) Mh.L.J.798]. In Farook vs Kadeer Meman 2016(1)
Mh.L.J 867, it is held that, when document was produced in
evidence by plaintiff, objection as to admissibility of document
can be raised when document is tendered in evidence and not
after same is marked as exhibit.

7. Presumptive value of registered document :

If an unstamped or insufficiently stamped document is

received in a particular set of proceedings, before an adjudicatory
authority, its admissibility cannot be questioned at a later point
of time.

Proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act permits of an

unregistered document to be received in evidence, for collateral
 20

purposes; such a facility is not created under Stamp Act and it

was held in number of cases that an unstamped or insufficiently
stamped document or instrument cannot be received in evidence
even for collateral purpses.

If an unregistered document is received as evidence, the

parties to the suit or proceeding can always urge at the time of
final hearing regarding the admissibility of the document. But, in
the case of improperly stamped or unstamped document being
offered as evidence in a suit, the Court has to necessarily decide
as and when objection is raised because, when once unstamped
document is admitted in evidence, at a later stage, the question
of inadmissibility cannot be raised.

In the case of Vimalchand Jain ...vs... Ramakant Jadoo

reported in 2009 (5) SCC 713, it is held that a registered deed
of sale carries presumption that the transaction was a genuine
one. If the execution of sale deed is proved, onus is on the other
side to prove that the deed was not executed and it was a sham
transaction. Thus, the burden to prove that it is not genuine lies
on the person who allges that it is not so.

Thus, the registration by itself, in all cases, is not proof of

execution; but, if no other evidence is available, the certificate of
registration is prima­facie evidence of its execution and the
certificate of the Registering Officer u/s.60 of the Registration Act
is relevant for proving the execution. Ref ­ Irudayam Ammal vs
Salayath Mary, AIR 1973 Mad. 421,

In Kashibai Martand ­Vs­ Vinayak Ganesh reported in

 21

AIR 1956 BOM 65 the Hon'ble High Court has observed that,
Section 58 of the Registration Act provides for particulars to be
endorsed on documents admitted to registration. Under Sub­
section (1) of this section, on every document admitted to
registration, other than a copy of a decree or order, or a copy
sent to a registering officer under Section 39, there shall be
endorsed, from time to time, the particulars mentioned in
Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the said sub­section. Under Clause (a),
the signature and addition of every person admitting the
execution of the document, and, if such execution has been
admitted by the representative, assignee or agent of any person,
the signature and addition of such representative, assignee or
agent, is required to be endorsed. Under Clause (c) of the said
sub­section, any payment of money or delivery of goods made in
the presence of the registering officer in reference to the
execution of the document, and any admission of receipt of
consideration, in whole or in part, made in his presence in
reference to such execution, is required to be endorsed. Clause
(b) deals with the signature and addition of every person
examined in reference to such document under any of the
provisions of the Act.

Proviso to Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act provides

that, except for proving Will, there is no need to call attesting
witness for proving of document which is duly registered. Section
114(e) and (f) raise presumption that all the requisite procedure
for registration of document, as laid down by Registration Act, is
duly complied with when document so registered is produced on
 22

record. A registered adoption deed offers a presumption that the

adoption is valid. However, it is also made clear that such
presumption is rebutable.

8. Certified copies of registered documents :

Section 74 of Indian Evidence Act defines public

documents. Section 75 defines private documents. Section 77
provides for production of certified copy of public documentfor
proving its contents. However, private documents though kept in
public record as contemplated under section 74(2) have to be
proved like private document. However, in view of section 60 of
the Registration Act, endorsement made by registering officer on
such registered document has presumptive value.

Section 65 ( c ) (e) of the Evidence Act provides that

secondary evidence can be given relating to documents which
have been destroyed or lost or which are public documents
within the meaning of Section 64 of the Evidence Act.

In view of Section 60 (2) of the Registration Act, once the

certificate was issued, sealed and dated by the Registering Officer
and certified copy along with the sale­deed was obtained and
filed, it would certainly be admissible in evidence for the purpose
of proving that the document has been duly registered in the
manner provided by the Registration Act.

In Kalyan Singh V/s Chhoti, A I R 1990 S C 396 it

was held that when the document is registered, the ordinary copy
is not admissible as secondary evidence. So, only certified copy of
registered copy is to be admitted as secondary evidence in
 23

absence of the original deed.

However, law does not say that a certified copy of a

registered agreement of sale is inadmissible in evidence; unless
parties to the documents are examined to prove it. ( State of
Haryana vs. Ram Singh, AIR 2001 S.C. 2532.) A certified copy
of a registered sale deed is admissible in evidence and does not
require to be proved by calling a witness. Ramappa vs. Bojappa,
AIR 1963 S.C. 1633.

Conclusion :

The Registration Act, unlike the Transfer of property

Act,1882, strikes only at documents, and not at transactions. In
the same way, the Registration Act does not require that every
transaction affecting immovable property should be carried out
only through a registered instrument. All that it enacts is that,
when a document is employed to effectuate any of the
transaction specified in section 17 of the Registration Act, such
document must be registered. An unregistered document can be
used for collateral purposes as provided by section 49 of the Act.
The objection regarding admissibility of instrument not duly
stamped has to be decided then and there when the document is
tendered in evidence and before it is marked as an Exhibit in the
case. Both the enactments aim at protecting the civil rights of
parties executing documents.

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We

are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a
single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects
 24

all indirectly.”
Martin Luther King., Jr.
With this we conclude the paper.

(S.D.Jagmalani)
District Judge­1,Latur

(P.K.Sharma)
District Judge­,3,Latur

(S.M.Yallatti)
Adhoc District Judge­,Latur

(Smt. Kanakdande)
Jt.CJSD,Latur

(A.K.Deshmukh)
Jt. CJJD,Latur