- Aprile 14, 2021
In India, the registration law was passed in 1908 (the “law”) with the aim of granting order, discipline and public notice with respect to real estate transactions and protection from fraud and falsification of transfer documents. Section 17 of the Act therefore requires the mandatory registration of certain types of documents and provides for the consequences of non-registration. The scope of Section 17 includes all documents (with instruments other than wills) that claim or operate to create, declare, limit or remove, whether it is now or in the future “any right, title or interest,” whether it is ownership or quota of the value of the Rs 100 and more or real estate. In particular, Section 49 of the same Act provides that no document that must be registered in accordance with Section 17 relates to all real estate contained in it or that has been received as evidence of a transaction, unless it has been registered. Section 49 prohibits receipt as evidence of a transfer document that must be registered under section 17 of the Registry Act or the Transfer of Ownership Act, but which is not registered.  Document: 2019 Last Case law 815 SC Judgment Date: Sep/2019 “An unregord rental record can only be considered for guarantees, and the guarantee cannot be construed as containing the conditions under which the parties are bound as a landlord and tenant. The secondary objective is essentially to show the nature of the property, i.e. that the tenant has not entered illegal possession but is legally in possession. All other conditions between the landlord and the tenant, as indicated in the registered rental file, whether for the duration of the tenancy, the rental price or the rental space or other conditions, cannot be considered under the specific bar of paragraph 49 of the registration law.” The Apex court questioned whether an agreement to sell unreg registered security could be considered under the condition of Section 49 of the Registration Act of 1908. The bank considered the appeal of the Madhya Pradesh High Court order, which had quashed the Tribunal`s order, referring to Avinash Kumar Chauhan v. Vijay Krishna Mishra.
In overturning the High Court`s decision, the bank found that the High Court had ignored the above points, while it felt that the unregulated document could not be considered for guarantees. It is well established that an unregured document cannot be received as evidence of a transaction covered by a registered document.  However, such an unregistered document may be used as collateral evidence, as provided for by the theft of section 49 of the Registration Act.  The above law is based on the principle that such a document may be necessary as evidence to prove the fact of a transaction, but not its content.  In addition, such an exception only applies if the transaction is reduced to a document form.  There are a large number of cases that have established that under section 49 of the Act, an unregified document may also be admitted as evidence of a safety/collateral objective.