Unregistered Lease Deed Admissible Under Section 90 Evidence Act: Orissa High Court Restores Permanent Injunction

High Court reinstates trial court’s decree, emphasizing the significance of continuous possession and acceptance of rent in tenancy disputes.

The Orissa High Court has reinstated a permanent injunction in favor of the appellants, overturning a prior appellate court’s decision. The judgment, delivered by Justice A.C. Behera, underlines the admissibility of an unregistered lease deed under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and affirms the tenancy rights arising from long possession and continuous rent payments accepted by the State.

The case originated from a suit filed by Madhusudan Sahu (since deceased) and others seeking a permanent injunction against the State of Orissa to prevent interference with their possession of a 0.460-acre property in Puri. The trial court had granted the injunction, recognizing the appellants’ possession since 1938 under an unregistered lease deed. However, the appellate court later reversed this decision, citing the inadmissibility of the unregistered lease deed. The appellants then approached the High Court for relief.

Admissibility of Unregistered Lease Deed:
The High Court held that the unregistered lease deed from 1938, which had been in possession of the appellant’s family and accepted by the State through rent payments, was admissible under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Justice Behera remarked, “When the document has been in existence for over 30 years and produced from proper custody, it carries a presumption of authenticity.”

Long Possession and Acceptance of Rent:
The court highlighted the significance of long possession and the continuous acceptance of rent by the State as key factors in recognizing tenancy rights. Justice Behera noted, “Continuous possession and rent payment acknowledged by the State over several decades are crucial in establishing tenancy rights, even in the absence of a formally registered lease deed.”

Injunction and Protection of Possession:
The judgment emphasized the necessity of protecting lawful possession against state interference. The trial court’s initial decree had rightly restrained the State from interfering with the appellant’s possession. The High Court reaffirmed this position, stating, “The possession of the suit properties by the appellants since 1938, supported by rent receipts and other documents, justifies the grant of permanent injunction against the State.”

Justice Behera extensively discussed the legal principles surrounding tenancy rights and the admissibility of evidence in property disputes. He reiterated that agricultural leases do not necessarily require formal documentation if possession and rent payments are evident. “As per the settled propositions of law, an agricultural tenancy can be created orally, and a lease deed, even if unregistered, can serve as evidence of such a lease,” the court observed.

Justice Behera remarked, “The legal effect of an unchallenged order of settlement of land under Section 8(1) of the O.E.A. Act concerning the suit properties, as evidenced by continuous possession and rent payments, cannot be negated by mere procedural deficiencies.”

The Orissa High Court’s decision to uphold the trial court’s judgment reinforces the protection of tenancy rights based on long-standing possession and the acceptance of rent by the State. This ruling underscores the importance of acknowledging historical possession and the evidentiary value of unregistered documents under the Indian Evidence Act. The judgment is expected to have significant implications for future property disputes involving similar issues of possession and tenancy rights.

Date of Decision: 07 May 2024