{"id":255141,"date":"2021-10-05T09:00:07","date_gmt":"2021-10-05T03:30:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=255141"},"modified":"2025-10-11T09:31:23","modified_gmt":"2025-10-11T04:01:23","slug":"is-a-family-settlement-not-affecting-immovable-property-compulsorily-registrable-document-will-it-be-admissible-as-evidence-supreme-court-decides","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/10\/05\/is-a-family-settlement-not-affecting-immovable-property-compulsorily-registrable-document-will-it-be-admissible-as-evidence-supreme-court-decides\/","title":{"rendered":"Whether registration of family settlement not \u201caffecting\u201d immovable property compulsory? Supreme Court decides admissibility of such settlement as evidence"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Supreme Court:<\/strong> The Division Bench of K.M Joseph* and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ., held that an unregistered family settlement document is admissible to be placed \u201cin\u201d evidence if it does not by itself affect the transaction though the same cannot be allowed \u201cas\u201d evidence. The Bench expressed,<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong><em>\u201cMerely admitting the Khararunama containing record of the alleged past transaction, is not to be understood as meaning that if those past transactions require registration, then, the mere admission, in evidence of the Khararunama and the receipt would produce any legal effect on the immovable properties in question.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Court was dealing with the impugned order of the Telangana High Court, whereby the High Court had set aside the order passed by the Trial Court by holding that the unregistered and unstamped family settlement \u201cKhararunama\u201d and receipt of Rs. 2,00,000 by the respondent were not admissible in evidence.<\/p>\n<h4 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #008000;\"><strong>Factual Contours <\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The respondent, younger brother of the appellants had instituted a suit seeking declaration of title over the plaint schedule property and for eviction of the appellants and consequential perpetual injunction was also sought against the appellants. Evidently, there was a partition between the appellants, the respondent and their other siblings. Pursuant to some disputes between the parties a Khararunama dated 15-04-1986 was executed recording the facts.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">It was contended by the respondent that the Khararunama required registration under section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908 and under the said settlement, appellants ought to pay certain sum to the respondent. The document would come into force after the receipt of the consideration.<\/p>\n<h4 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #008000;\"><strong>Statutory Requirements<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Undoubtedly, Section 17(1)(b) makes \u2018other non-testamentary instruments\u2019, which purport or operate to create, assign, limit or extinguish whether in present or in future any right or interest whether vested or contingent of the value of Rs.100\/- and upwards in an immovable property compulsorily registrable. Section 17(1)(c) reads as follows:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><em>\u201c17(1)(c) non-testamentary 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\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Section 49(c) of Registration Act prohibits the admitting of compulsorily registrable documents which are unregistered as evidence of any transaction affecting immovable property unless it has been registered.<\/p>\n<h4 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #008000;\"><strong>Opinion and Analysis <\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Opining that unregistered document can be used as evidence of any collateral transaction, the Bench stated, however, the said collateral transaction should not itself be one which must be affected by a registered document. In <em>K. Panchapagesa Ayyar v. K. Kalyanasundaram Ayyar<\/em>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/W2TETRGP\">1956 SCC OnLine Mad 141<\/a>, the Madras High Court was of the view:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><em>\u201cTo sum up it is well settled in a long series of decisions which have since received statutory recognition by the Amending Act of 1929 (vide the concluding words of the new proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act) that a compulsorily registrable but an unregistered document is admissible in evidence for a collateral purpose that is to say, for any purpose other than that of creating, declaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing a right to immovable property\u201d.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #800000;\"><strong><em>Whether the Khararunama by itself affected rights in the immovable properties in question?<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The next question before the Bench was whether the Khararunama by itself \u2018affects\u2019, i.e., by itself creates, declares, limits or extinguishes rights in the immovable properties in question or whether it merely refers to what the appellants alleged were past transactions which had been entered into by the parties, the Bench answered, going by the words used in the document, they indicate that the words were intended to refer to the arrangements allegedly which the parties made in the past and the document did not purport to by itself create, declare, assign, extinguish or limit right in properties.<\/p>\n<h4 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #008000;\"><strong>Evidentiary Value of Khararunama<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">As per Section 49(1) (a), a compulsorily registrable document, which is not registered, cannot produce any effect on the rights in immovable property by way of creation, declaration, assignment, limiting or extinguishment. Thus, observing that Section 49(1) prevents an unregistered document being used \u2018as\u2019 evidence of the transaction, which affects immovable property, the Bench stated,<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong><em>\u201cIf the Khararunama by itself, does not \u2018affect\u2019 immovable property, being a record of the alleged past transaction, though relating to immovable property, there would be no breach of Section 49(1)(c), as it is not being used as evidence of a transaction effecting such property.\u201d <\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Bench held that being let in evidence is different from being used as evidence of the transaction; thus, the transaction or the past transactions could not be proved by using the Khararunama as evidence of the transaction. In other words, the Bench held, <em>\u201cmerely admitting the Khararunama containing record of the alleged past transaction, is not to be, understood as meaning that if those past transactions require registration, then, the mere admission, in evidence of the Khararunama and the receipt would produce any legal effect on the immovable properties in question.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In <em>Muruga Mudallar v. Subba Reddiar<\/em>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/R2YTjT42\">1950 SCC OnLine Mad 136<\/a>, the Madras High Court had held that, <strong><em>\u201cthe consequence of non-registration is to prohibit the document from being received not &#8220;in&#8221; evidence, but &#8220;as&#8221; evidence of any transaction affecting such property.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">As far as stamp duty was concerned, the Bench was of the view that since the Khararunama was a mere record of past transaction it did not require to be stamped.<\/p>\n<h4 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #008000;\"><strong>Verdict<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Lastly, the Bench held, when there had been a partition, there may be no scope for invoking the concept of antecedent right as such, therefore since the appellants and the respondents had partitioned their joint family properties, the properties mentioned in the Khararunama would be separate properties of the respondent.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Resultantly, the Appeal was allowed. The impugned Judgment was set aside and the Khararunama was held to be admissible in evidence but not as evidence.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">[Korukonda Chalapathi v. Korukonda Annapurna Sampath Kumar, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/1hUIvd8N\"><b>2021 SCC OnLine SC 847<\/b><\/a>, decided on 01-10-2021]<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">________________________________________________________________________<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #808000;\"><strong>Kamini Sharma, Editorial Assistant has put this report together<\/strong><\/span><br \/>\n________________________________________________________________________<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Appearance by:<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">For the Appellants: Advocate M. Vijay Bhaskar<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">For the Respondent: Advocate Venkateshwar Rao<\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<p><strong>*Judgment by: Justice K.M Joseph<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>\u201cIf the Khararunama by itself, does not \u2018affect\u2019 immovable property&#8230; there would be no breach of Section 49(1)(c), as it is not being used as evidence of a transaction effecting such property.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":243205,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,9],"tags":[13321,31827,44890,31853,10851,47373],"class_list":["post-255141","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-supremecourt","tag-admissibility","tag-evidentiary-value","tag-family-settlement","tag-partition","tag-registration","tag-stamp"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v26.4 (Yoast SEO v26.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Whether registration of family settlement not \u201caffecting\u201d immovable property compulsory? Supreme Court decides admissibility of such settlement as evidence | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/10\/05\/is-a-family-settlement-not-affecting-immovable-property-compulsorily-registrable-document-will-it-be-admissible-as-evidence-supreme-court-decides\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Whether registration of family settlement not \u201caffecting\u201d immovable property compulsory? Supreme Court decides admissibility of such settlement as evidence\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"\u201cIf the Khararunama by itself, does not \u2018affect\u2019 immovable property... there would be no breach of Section 49(1)(c), as it is not being used as evidence of a transaction effecting such property.\u201d\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/10\/05\/is-a-family-settlement-not-affecting-immovable-property-compulsorily-registrable-document-will-it-be-admissible-as-evidence-supreme-court-decides\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2021-10-05T03:30:07+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-10-11T04:01:23+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-3-3.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1331\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"888\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/10\/05\/is-a-family-settlement-not-affecting-immovable-property-compulsorily-registrable-document-will-it-be-admissible-as-evidence-supreme-court-decides\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/10\/05\/is-a-family-settlement-not-affecting-immovable-property-compulsorily-registrable-document-will-it-be-admissible-as-evidence-supreme-court-decides\/\",\"name\":\"Whether registration of family settlement not \u201caffecting\u201d immovable property compulsory? Supreme Court decides admissibility of such settlement as evidence | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/10\/05\/is-a-family-settlement-not-affecting-immovable-property-compulsorily-registrable-document-will-it-be-admissible-as-evidence-supreme-court-decides\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/10\/05\/is-a-family-settlement-not-affecting-immovable-property-compulsorily-registrable-document-will-it-be-admissible-as-evidence-supreme-court-decides\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-3-3.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2021-10-05T03:30:07+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-10-11T04:01:23+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/10\/05\/is-a-family-settlement-not-affecting-immovable-property-compulsorily-registrable-document-will-it-be-admissible-as-evidence-supreme-court-decides\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/10\/05\/is-a-family-settlement-not-affecting-immovable-property-compulsorily-registrable-document-will-it-be-admissible-as-evidence-supreme-court-decides\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/10\/05\/is-a-family-settlement-not-affecting-immovable-property-compulsorily-registrable-document-will-it-be-admissible-as-evidence-supreme-court-decides\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-3-3.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-3-3.jpg\",\"width\":1331,\"height\":888},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/10\/05\/is-a-family-settlement-not-affecting-immovable-property-compulsorily-registrable-document-will-it-be-admissible-as-evidence-supreme-court-decides\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Whether registration of family settlement not \u201caffecting\u201d immovable property compulsory? Supreme Court decides admissibility of such settlement as evidence\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Whether registration of family settlement not \u201caffecting\u201d immovable property compulsory? Supreme Court decides admissibility of such settlement as evidence | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/10\/05\/is-a-family-settlement-not-affecting-immovable-property-compulsorily-registrable-document-will-it-be-admissible-as-evidence-supreme-court-decides\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Whether registration of family settlement not \u201caffecting\u201d immovable property compulsory? Supreme Court decides admissibility of such settlement as evidence","og_description":"\u201cIf the Khararunama by itself, does not \u2018affect\u2019 immovable property... there would be no breach of Section 49(1)(c), as it is not being used as evidence of a transaction effecting such property.\u201d","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/10\/05\/is-a-family-settlement-not-affecting-immovable-property-compulsorily-registrable-document-will-it-be-admissible-as-evidence-supreme-court-decides\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2021-10-05T03:30:07+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-10-11T04:01:23+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1331,"height":888,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-3-3.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/10\/05\/is-a-family-settlement-not-affecting-immovable-property-compulsorily-registrable-document-will-it-be-admissible-as-evidence-supreme-court-decides\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/10\/05\/is-a-family-settlement-not-affecting-immovable-property-compulsorily-registrable-document-will-it-be-admissible-as-evidence-supreme-court-decides\/","name":"Whether registration of family settlement not \u201caffecting\u201d immovable property compulsory? Supreme Court decides admissibility of such settlement as evidence | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/10\/05\/is-a-family-settlement-not-affecting-immovable-property-compulsorily-registrable-document-will-it-be-admissible-as-evidence-supreme-court-decides\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/10\/05\/is-a-family-settlement-not-affecting-immovable-property-compulsorily-registrable-document-will-it-be-admissible-as-evidence-supreme-court-decides\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-3-3.jpg","datePublished":"2021-10-05T03:30:07+00:00","dateModified":"2025-10-11T04:01:23+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/10\/05\/is-a-family-settlement-not-affecting-immovable-property-compulsorily-registrable-document-will-it-be-admissible-as-evidence-supreme-court-decides\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/10\/05\/is-a-family-settlement-not-affecting-immovable-property-compulsorily-registrable-document-will-it-be-admissible-as-evidence-supreme-court-decides\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/10\/05\/is-a-family-settlement-not-affecting-immovable-property-compulsorily-registrable-document-will-it-be-admissible-as-evidence-supreme-court-decides\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-3-3.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-3-3.jpg","width":1331,"height":888},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/10\/05\/is-a-family-settlement-not-affecting-immovable-property-compulsorily-registrable-document-will-it-be-admissible-as-evidence-supreme-court-decides\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Whether registration of family settlement not \u201caffecting\u201d immovable property compulsory? Supreme Court decides admissibility of such settlement as evidence"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-3-3.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":288717,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/04\/07\/admissibility-of-documents-in-evidence-in-civil-cases-marking-of-documents-as-exhibits-and-objections-to-documents-being-taken-on-record\/","url_meta":{"origin":255141,"position":0},"title":"Admissibility of Documents in Evidence in Civil Cases \u2015 Marking of Documents as Exhibits and Objections to Documents Being Taken on Record","author":"Editor","date":"April 7, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"by Amira Abdul Razaq\u2020","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Op Eds&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Admissibility of Evidence in Civil Proceedings","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/MicrosoftTeams-image-1033.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/MicrosoftTeams-image-1033.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/MicrosoftTeams-image-1033.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/MicrosoftTeams-image-1033.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":289603,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/04\/15\/unregistered-agreement-to-sell-shall-be-admissible-in-evidence-in-suit-for-specific-performance-supreme-court-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/","url_meta":{"origin":255141,"position":1},"title":"Unregistered agreement to sell an admissible evidence in a suit for specific performance; Supreme Court upholds Madras High Court Judgment","author":"Apoorva","date":"April 15, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court said that as per proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 an unregistered document affecting immovable property 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\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"unregistered agreement to sell as evidence","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/unregistered-agreement-to-sell-as-evidence.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/unregistered-agreement-to-sell-as-evidence.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/unregistered-agreement-to-sell-as-evidence.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/unregistered-agreement-to-sell-as-evidence.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":244430,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/25\/consent-decree-recognising-pre-existing-rights-created-by-oral-family-settlement-does-not-require-registration-under-section-17-of-registration-act-1908-supreme-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":255141,"position":2},"title":"Consent decree recognising pre-existing rights created by oral family settlement does not require registration under section 17 of Registration Act, 1908: Supreme Court","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"February 25, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: The bench of Ashok Bhushan* and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ has held that consent decree recognising pre-existing rights created by oral family settlement does not require registration under section 17 of\u00a0 Registration Act, 1908. Background In the present case, Shri Sher Singh, husband of Jagno had half share\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":256574,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/01\/supreme-court-monthly-roundup-october-2021\/","url_meta":{"origin":255141,"position":3},"title":"Supreme Court Monthly Roundup &#8211; October 2021","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"November 1, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cIn matters pertaining to national security, the scope of judicial review is limited. However, this does not mean that the State gets a free pass every time the spectre of \u201cnational security\u201d is raised. National security cannot be the bugbear that the judiciary shies away from, by virtue of its\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Legal RoundUp&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Legal RoundUp","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/columns-for-roundup\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/11\/MicrosoftTeams-image-3.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/11\/MicrosoftTeams-image-3.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/11\/MicrosoftTeams-image-3.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/11\/MicrosoftTeams-image-3.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/11\/MicrosoftTeams-image-3.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":348554,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/22\/unstamped-and-unregistered-but-still-permitted-as-proof-for-oral-agreement-of-sale-supreme-court-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":255141,"position":4},"title":"Unregistered document affecting immovable property can be an admissible evidence of contract in a suit for specific performance: Supreme Court","author":"Sucheta","date":"May 22, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"In S. Kaladevi v. V.R. Somasundaram, (2010) 5 SCC 401, the Supreme Court had held that an unregistered document may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit seeking specific performance.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"unregistered document","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/unregistered-document.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/unregistered-document.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/unregistered-document.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/unregistered-document.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":6488,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/09\/20\/ruling-of-navjot-sandhu-case-to-the-extent-of-admissibility-of-electronic-evidence-as-secondary-evidence-overruled\/","url_meta":{"origin":255141,"position":5},"title":"Ruling of Navjot Sandhu case to the extent of admissibility of electronic evidence as secondary evidence, overruled","author":"Sucheta","date":"September 20, 2014","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: Deciding the admissibility of the secondary evidence pertaining to electronic evidence, the 3-judge bench of R.M. Lodha, CJ and Kurian Joseph and R.F. Nariman, JJ overruled the ruling of the Court in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, (2005) 11 SCC 600 \u00a0(Navjot Sandhu Case) to that\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Supreme Court&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Supreme Court","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/supremecourt\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/255141","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=255141"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/255141\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/243205"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=255141"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=255141"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=255141"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}