- (1.) K. C. Agrawal, J. Finding a conflict between Fateh Chand v. Radha Rani (1956 All LJ 625), and Arsad Ali Khan v. State of U. P. (AIR 1978 All 59), Sallo Mal v. Smt. Nainabai (AIR 1979 All 32), Ram Swarup Jain v. Janki Devi Bhagat (AIR 1974 All 424), Jai Narain Das v. Zubeda Khatoon (AIR 1972 All 494), and Ratan Lal v. Hari Shanker (AIR 1980 All 180), a learned single Judge referred the following two questions for decision by a larger Bench: - "1. Whether any term of a lease deed required under Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act to be registered, could be pressed into service for a collateral purpose within the meaning of the proviso to Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act ?
(2.) WHETHER, in the instant case, the relationship of landlord and tenant, the rate of rent and the period for which the original lease had been granted could be looked into as a collateral purpose under the Proviso to S. 49 of the Indian Registration Act. " 2. The facts, briefly stated, are that the plaintiff Satish Kumar brought Small Cause Court Suit No. 74 of 1972 for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent against three defendants. The plaintiff alleged that the accommodation in suit had been let out to the defendants on his behalf through rent deed Dt. 30th Aug. , 1969, at the rate of Rs. 120/- per month, and as the defendants had not paid the rent, they were liable to eviction. The suit was contested by defendants 1 to 3. They alleged that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between themselves and the plaintiff, and further asserted that the premises had been taken by them on a monthly rent of Rs. 50/- from one Kishan Chand and Buddhu Ram. The trial court decreed the suit, against which the present revision under S. 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act was filed in this Court. In the revision, one of the controversies raised was that the deed, since it was not registered, was not admissible. On this point, as the learned single Judge found a conflict, he referred the two questions, mentioned above. Section 17 (1) (d) of the Indian Registration Act provides that no lease of any immovable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent, be created other than by a registered document. This S. 17 (1) (d) thus makes registration compulsory to those leases which are covered by paragraph (1) of S. 107 of the Transfer of Property Act. Leases which are reduced into writing and are otherwise not covered either by Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of S. 17 of the Registration Act or by Paragraph (1) of S. 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, come within the purview of the second paragraph of S. 107 read with S. 4 of the Transfer of Property Act. apart from various other sections mentioned therein, would be read as supplemental to the Indian Registration Act. Consequently, reading the two provisions together, it is clear that a lease for a period less than a year made in writing must be registered u/s. 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, though it is not compulsorily registrable u/s. 17 (1) (d) of the Registration Act (Rama Sahu v. Gowro, (1921) ILR 44 Mad 55 : (AIR 1921 Mad 337) (FB ). The effect of non-registration of a lease deed is dealt with in S. 49 of the Registration Act. It lays down that any document which is required to be registered shall not be looked into for the purposes of creating the rights purported to be done under it. However, the Proviso to this Section permits an unregistered document to be looked into for a limited purpose. The relevant portion of this Proviso is as under: "provided that in unregistered document affecting immoveable property and required by this Act or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), to be registered may be received as evidence. . . . . . or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument".
(3.) FROM the above, it is clear that unregistered document can be into for collateral purposes, which is required to be evidenced or effected a registered document. As to what is collateral purpose, has not been in either the Registration Act or in Transfer of Property Act. For this, reference may be made to the dictionary meanings. In Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, this expression "collateral" has been given the meaning as "accompanying as secondary or subordinate". To the same effect is the meaning given in Black's law Dictionary, Fourth Edition. The meaning according to this dictionary, is "additional or supplementary, co-operating, accompanying as a secondary fact or acting as a secondary agent. Thus, collateral purpose for which a document required to be registered and is not so registered, is only for secondary purpose. In M. Chelamayya v. M. Venkataratnam (AIR 1972 SC 1121), wherein the Supreme Court was required to examine the question with regard to the admissibility of an award which was not registered, the Supreme Court held: that under the proviso to S. 49 of the Registration Act, the Court can admit any unregistered document as evidence of a collateral transaction. To the same effect is the view of the Division Bench of Dammulal v. Mohammad Bhai (AIR 1955 Nag 306 ).;