AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This revision petition is directed against the order of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadiri dated 26-6-2000 in OS No.148 of 1988 which was passed when the admissibility of certain documents was raised.
The document in question is an award of the Arbitrator. The learned Junior Judge passed the impugned order relying on the judgment of this Court in P. Sadananda Reddy Vs. C. Venkata Ratnam and others, . Wherein it has been held as follows:
"There is no prohibition for receiving the unregistered award in evidence u/s 49 of the Registration Act, but such document shall not validly affect any immovable property covered by the award and that it can be received in evidence for collateral purpose. It can be set up as a defence of resolving the disputes and acceptance it by the parties."
The learned Counsel for the petitioner does not question the correctness of the order of the Junior Judge as far as receiving the document into evidence is concerned. But his objection is that the observations of the learned Junior Judge in the order are likely to be interpreted in a way which is inconsistent with the law relating to the use of such document for collateral purpose.
In the concluding para of the order the learned Junior Judge observed as follows:
"As the plaintiffs paid stamp duty penalty I feel that the document can be taken as an agreement of the award which can be taken in evidence for collateral purpose to arrive just decision with regard to the nature of possession of the properties."
There is nothing in this remark which can be said to go contrary to the well established principle that a document which is otherwise inadmissible for want of registration on the question of title can be looked into for collateral purpose of showing the nature of possession. Apart from this, the question whether the document which is admitted into evidence can be used in proof of a particular question which may arise in the suit is certainly a matter which will be decided by the Trial Court during the final hearing. Any observation made in an interlocutory order would not be binding on the trial Court in formulating its opinion on any question which arises for consideration at the final hearing of the suit.
With the above observations, the revision petition is dismissed.