Court held that the transaction or the past transactions cannot be proved by using the Khararunama as evidence of the transaction. That is, it is to be noted that, merely admitting the Khararunama containing record of the alleged past transaction, is not to be, however, 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. Further held that, Khararunama, being record of the alleged transactions, it may not require to be stamped. (CA (No.) 6141 of 2021 , dt 1-10- 2021 Court held that the transaction or the past transactions cannot be proved by using the Khararunama as evidence of the transaction. That is, it is to be noted that, merely admitting the Khararunama containing record of the alleged past transaction, is not to be, however, 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. Further held that, Khararunama, being record of the alleged transactions, it may not require to be stamped. (CA (No.) 6141 of 2021 , dt 1-10- 2021
Korukonda Chalapathi Rao & Ors v. Korukonda Annapurna Sampath Kumar MANU/SC/0757 /2021 (SC) / , 2021(4)RCR(Civil)433 (SC) (SC)
Registration Act, 1908
S. 17: Documents of which registration is compulsory – Effect of non-registration of documents required to be registered – Deed of Family Settlement – Merely recording of past transaction – Registration not mandatory- It may not require to be stamped.[ S. 49, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Ord. 13, R. 3]