Admissibility Of Unregistered Sale Agreement
It should be noted that if a document is inadmissible in the absence of registration as evidence, none of its concepts can be accepted as evidence and that the use of a document to prove an important clause would not serve as a secondary purpose.  For example, in Haran Chandra Chakrvarti v. Kaliprasanna Sarkar, it was decided that the terms of a mandatory registration instrument are nothing less than a transaction in respect of the property it contains. It was also decided that the use of such an instrument to prove such a provision does not constitute a security objective and that the question of who the lessee is and under what conditions it was created is not collateral assets, but are important terms of the lease. which cannot be proved as evidence by the approval of an unregistsed deed of lease. Subsequently, the Supreme Court of Bajaj Auto Limited v. Behari Lal Kohli considered that if a decree purporting to establish a lease is inadmissible as evidence for lack of registration, none of the conditions of the rental agreement can be accepted as evidence and that the use of a document to prove an important clause in the rental agreement is not used as an ancillary object. In M/s Jiwan Industries (P) Ltd. v. Smt. Kamlesh Rani Budhiraja, “an arbitration agreement does not require registration under the Registration Act.
Even if it is found to be one of the clauses of a contract or instrument, it is an independent agreement to refer disputes to an arbitration procedure independent of the contract or the main instrument. Therefore, taking into account the reservation set out in Article 49 of the Registration Act, in conjunction with Article 16(1)(a) of the Act, an arbitration agreement may be negotiated and applied in an unregistered but compulsorily registrable document for the purposes of dispute settlement`.  1. A document submitted for registration, if it is not registered, is not admissible as evidence under section 49 of the Registration Act. It is well regulated that an unregreged document cannot be obtained as proof of a transaction covered by a registered document.  However, such an unregistered document may be used as evidence of a secondary purpose, as provided for in section 49 of the Registration Act.  The above law is based on the premise that such a document may be required as evidence to prove the fact of a transaction, but not for its content.  In addition, such a derogation only applies if the transaction has been reduced to a form of document.
 There are a large number of cases in which it is established that, subject to section 49 of the Act, an unregistered document may also be admitted as evidence of a security dewatering object. However, in order to authorize such a document for ancillary purposes, the document so proposed must be duly stamped or comply with the requirements of section 35 of the Stamps Act, without which this document cannot be obtained as evidence, unless customs duties and penalties are paid in accordance with section 35 of the Stamps Act.  In G. Balakishtiah vs.B. Ranga Reddy, it was decided that an unreg registered deed of lease could be admissible as evidence of the Claimant`s (who owned the disputed land) ownership of the lease land. Similarly, the Privy Council de hemanta Kumari Debi v. Midnapur Zamindari Co. had decided that the admission of the property in unregistered leases could be admissible as evidence. More recently, the Supreme Court of Shibani Basu v. Sandip Ray that the non-registration of a rental note does not preclude the use for ancillary purposes of a document that should be compulsorily registered.
`An unregistsed deed of rental may be examined only for precautionary purposes and an ancillary object may not be interpreted in such a way as to contain the conditions under which the parties are related as lessors and tenants. . . .