Good morning, everyone. The recording has started. Even before we could begin with our session, I would request one of us to please lead us in prayer. Can I request Aradhana? Aradhana, can you pray? Okay. Okay. Rosalind, are you in a position to pray? Am I audible? Yes. Okay. Thank you. So, Paul, can you please pray? Let's pray. Father, in the name of Jesus, we thank you yet for another week. Thank you for being a good Lord. We have been our keeper. Thank you, Father, as we are going to hear your word. We pray that, Lord, it enters into our hearts, our minds.  We pray and believe all this in Jesus Christ's name, Son of the Living God. Amen. Amen. Amen. So, yes. So, last week we studied on first Corinthians and today we're going to study on second Corinthians. So, even before I could start, let me project a slide. Yes. Yeah, we are able to see it. Okay. So, good morning. Once again, let's begin this class on the second letter of Corinthians. So, do we know how many letters did Paul write? We know the author, right? From last class, we know who's the author of this letter. It's Apostle Paul. And how many letters did Paul write to the church of Corinthians? Yes, Brother Lubega, please go ahead. I think it is more than two. There must be in four, five and more, but I can only say that the answer is more than two letters. Yes. Yes, good. Thank you. Thank you, Brother Lubega. That's right. It is definitely more than two letters. Anyone else would like to add, like, what happened to the other letters? Even before we could come to the letters, okay, I would like to share something on Soteriological Epistle. What is this? In the book of first Corinthians, we see it notable for its insistence that the cross of Christ is the instrument of sanctification. I'm just giving a little bit background of the previous letter so that we'll understand as we study on the second letter of the book of Corinthians. So, in basic solution is the moral issue of life. So, while Romans and Galatians emphasized on the truth of justification is by faith in Christ and the first Corinthians was written to remind the believers that though they once had been spiritually and morally bankrupt, now they are washed and sanctified and justified by the blood of Jesus, by the work that Jesus did on the cross. So, it is not by what they are doing. It is not by the work but by the grace of God. We see that in 1 Corinthians chapter 6, 11. So, whatever they ate or drank, whatever they did, they were to do all for the glory of God. So, what is this doctrine of soteriology? What is the study all about? Well, when we see it is a branch of theology which deals with the study of salvation. So, sotereo, it is a Greek word. Sotereon in Greek means salvation. So, it's related to sorter, means savior. So, sotereology relates to several other branches of theology. So, in that it asks something like they do a deep study. They have a deep study of who is saved, by whom, for what and by what means. So, there is a deep study that goes on into this particular stream. So, in 1 Corinthians, it is notable for its persistence on the study of salvation. And what was the theme of 1 Corinthians letter? What was the theme? Please refer to your notes. Please, let's take this opportunity to refer so that the more local church. Exactly, good, good. Thanks, Zellie. So, to bring an order in the local church. So, what is the theme in the 2 Corinthians, the letter to 2 Corinthians? The true gospel ministry for Christ. Yes, the true gospel ministry for Christ. So, keeping in this mind, let's look into how many letters did Paul write. So, when we go through the scholars say that Paul had written about 4 letters to the Corinthian church. And it was written approximately in 56 to 57 AD, about 6 months after Paul wrote the first letter of 1 Corinthians. So, the first letter which dealt with the problem of fornication in the church, which has been noted in 1 Corinthians chapter 5-9, and then that letter has been lost. And the second letter, that is the 1 Corinthians which we have recorded in our Bible, in our scripture, deals with the various problems he had become aware of in the church. So, that is what we have as 1 Corinthians. And the third, Paul writes another letter. That's a third letter to the church of Corinth. That was pretty harsh and disciplinary in nature. And this letter has also been lost. But some scholars say there's stress or a portion of the letter has been preserved in the 2 Corinthians in chapters 6 and 7. And then we also see the leading for Paul to write the fourth letter, which he comforted those who had gotten themselves right with God. And strongly he defended his apostleship against some who were opposing his authority. So, that the fourth letter is what we have recorded as 2 Corinthians. So, totally the scholars say that Paul had written 4 letters. First one was lost. Second one is what we have as 1 Corinthians. Third one is also lost. But a portion of that letter is preserved in the 2 Corinthians in chapter 6 and of the first half of chapter 7. And the fourth letter is what we have as 2 Corinthians. Okay, is that clear to us? Okay, keeping that in mind, let's look at the background of this place of Corinth. I know we discussed this last week just to brush up our knowledge so that we remember well. Corinth was the capital of the province of Achaia, that is Greece. Its strategic location made it a point where all trade routes met in this place. And so it would appeal to Paul as an ideal centre for which the Gospel could spread or could be shared. So, commercially when we look at this place, because of its position, Corinth became one of the greatest trading and a commercial centre of its day. So, all traffic from the north to south of Greece went through Corinth which made it very prosperous. Yes, keeping the business or the commercial place, we also see the religious aspect of this or the morality of the people. It was very wicked in city, noted for its evil and immoral lifestyle. So, the expression of the Corinthians when they say Corinthian eyes is meant to live with drunkenness and immorality. This was the lifestyle of the Corinthians who lived in those days. And it was also known, this place was also known for the temple of Aphrodite, was there, which had about 1000 temple prostitutes. And the scholars also say that it was the Sodom of those days, this place. Corinth was known as the Sodom of those days, full of sin, full of wicked thing happening there. They were known for that lifestyle. And look at the place where Paul has chosen to carry the Gospel and go to this place to share the good news that even if you believe in Jesus as a Lord and Saviour, you have eternal life. He has carried the Gospel and went into a place which was called as Sodom of those days or the city was so much filled with wicked and immoral lifestyle. And here we see a man with a great passion carrying the Gospel of Jesus Christ and entering into the city. Now, definitely there would be a greater position from the enemy and also from the people. And also we see Paul's second letter to the Corinthians. He says, you know, I'm carrying this letter to them so that each one can receive this Gospel, can receive this good news and be saved. So as we're going to study further, we should know who's the recipient of this letter. Who's the recipient of this letter? The Church at Collins. Yes, you're right. The Church of Corinth. Okay, I'll go to the next slide. Okay. So what we're going to study here, there are about 13 chapters. The first chapter, chapter 1 to chapter 7, talks about the crucial concerns. Crucial concerns, suffering and God's comfort. New covenant ministry, preserving and godliness. We also see there are some issues in the Church has been addressed in chapter 1 to chapter 7. What is that? Misunderstanding, concerns, explanations. And here we also see Paul's tone as he writes this letter. He's asking them to be more forgiving, more grateful. As he mentions all that, he's also mentioning with an authority with boldness. And then chapter 8 to chapter 9, we see the grace giving. Example of Macedonia, command to the Corinthians. And it talks about some of the issues that they had about the financial project, financial need. And then he confidently writes to them, addresses those issues. And then lastly, in chapter 10 to 13, we see the apostolic authority that he carried with the, you know, and he tries to defend his apostleship. He replies to the critics of the people who came against him, the false teachers. And he also justifies the ministry that he's carrying. And he talks about the vision, the revelation, the credentials and the warning. And God's power has been perfected in the weakness. So it was not easy for Paul to face the people. Yes, he had a lot of oppositions and many other areas. But then with all that, he presents the gospel. He defends the gospel with strong and with boldness. And there are some key verses. This was four to five and nine, chapter four, verse five. Can I request one of us to please turn to chapter four, verse five. The other can turn to chapter nine, verse seven. And the next person can turn to chapter 10, verse eight. Please. For we do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord and ourselves, your bond servants for Jesus' sake. Amen. Next person. So Paul says in four five that for we do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord and ourselves, your bond servant for Christ's sake. So this was the key verse for which Paul cavied scripture to the church of Corinthians. And can I request one of you all to please turn to chapter nine, verse seven. Second Corinthians chapter nine, verse seven. So let each one give us, give as he purposes in his heart, not grudgingly or of necessity. For God loves a cheerful given. Amen. So as he's been, he's encouraging the church to be a cheerful giver. So here we see that Paul talking about the financial need and he's telling let each one give as he proposes in his heart. Not grudgingly or of necessity. For God loves a cheerful giver. Give out of love. Don't have to push yourself, but then just give it, give to God because he has blessed you. He has given you so that you may receive the abundant blessing of that very act of giving. The next verse, chapter 10 verse eight, please. Chapter 10 verse eight. For even if I should boost, boast somewhat more about our authority, which the Lord gave us for edification and not for your destruction, I shall not be ashamed. Amen. Amen. So it says for even if I should boast somewhat more about our authority, which the Lord gave us for edification and not for your destruction, I shall not be ashamed. Amen. Thank you. That was the authority that Paul carried with which he carried the gospel to the Corinthians church. So with that, I'll stop presenting this and we'll go back to our notes. Just give me a second, please. So what was the, what was the reason for the second, for the second goodness, for the letter of this second Corinthians to be written by Paul? What may be the reason? Yes, please. Go ahead. I think he was happy with the report. You know, the first letter was given to Timothy and the second letter was given. I mean, the third letter was given to Titus. So he was happy about the report that Titus told him in Macedonia, how they had reacted to the second, to the third letter, which we don't have. So I think it was out of happiness. Yes, you're right. Yes, even the letter says that. So it was a follow up to the first letter, most likely, which was written in Macedonia. And as Brother Lubega said, it was just a follow up of the letter that was lost. But then we see that he was very grateful and Paul was waiting perhaps as much as a year to year from them, year from the local church. And then he had responded to his previous letter and he also most likely made a short trip in the meantime. That's what the scholars say. He would have made a short trip in the meantime to correct some of the problem in the Corinthian church and many of the problems had improved by now and he gives praise to God for that. And he would also like to address the new threats that had risen from the Judaizers. And in response to that report, there was the infiltration of some false teachers and false teaching that was arising, which was seemed to be a common experience for Paul those days because some false teachers had come behind them and they were teaching other than what Paul was teaching them, a different gospel. A different gospel. They had to establish themselves and they teaching. They had to try to undermine the authority or bring down the reputation of Paul in the church. So the Judaistic party had attacked Paul's apostate ship, his leadership on several grounds and they accused him in different areas. We see in yeah, first request one of you to turn to 2 Corinthians chapter 1 verse 16 to 18, sorry yeah, chapter 1 verse 16 to 18 to pass by way of you to Macedonia to come again from Macedonia to you and be helped by you on my way to Judea. Therefore when I was planning this, did I do it lightly or the things I plan, do I plan according to the flesh that with me there should be yes, yes and no no. But as God is faithful, our word to you was not yes and no. Should I continue more? Yeah, yeah, thanks, thanks, thanks Rosalind. So we see how Paul was accused and he's giving an explanation and they accused Paul of not preaching the whole gospel because of his lack of emphasis on work. We see that in chapter 4 can I request one of you to turn to chapter 4 verse 1 to 6. Therefore since we have this ministry as we have received the mercy we do not lose heart but we have renounced the hidden things of shame not working in craftiness or handling the word of God decided decidedly but by manifestation of the truth commanding ourselves to every man is conscious in the sight of God. But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing whose minds the God of this age has blinded who do not believe least the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ who is the image of God should shine on them for we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus the Lord and ourselves your bound servants for Christ to say for it is God who commanded light to shine out of darkness who has shown in our hearts to give the light of knowledge of the glory of God in the amen. Amen Amen So well Paul is explaining he is preaching the gospel and also in the same letter in chapter 12 he says they accused him of not being a real apostle and also these juristic party they accused him of being pride and boastful they even attack this appearance of the manner of his speech has been less than impressive or even compatible they that's the reason we see that can I request one of y'all to turn to chapter 5 verse 12 chapter 5 verse 12 we see for what Paul is defending and giving an answer of can I request one of y'all to turn to chapter 5 verse 12 for we do not comment ourselves again to you but to give you opportunity to boast on our behalf that you may have an answer for those who boast in appearance and not in heart and chapter 10 verse 7 to 11 yeah Rosalind you can do you look at things according to the outward appearance if anyone is convinced in himself that he is Christ let him again consider this in himself that just as he is Christ even so we are Christ for even if I should boast some somewhat more about our authority which the Lord gave us for edification and not for your destruction I shall not be ashamed lest I seem to terrify you by letters for his letters they say are weighty and powerful but his bodily presence is weak and his speech contemptible let such a person consider this that what we are inward by letters when we are absent such we will also be indeed when we are present amen thank you so very clearly when we read the gospel he says that I do not come with you know eloquent speech okay I do not come with speech but you know I come with simple words the gospel I come to you with gospel and he shows about simplicity and he also defends his apostleship and we also see he was it was a defense of his right to speak into the life of church in chapter one verse 12 and also in chapter two verse four we see that Paul explained why he had changed his plans for coming to them because they accused him these jurisers partly accused him for saying he said he is coming but the need did not come so he does not keep his word so here we see Paul explains to them he says why he had to change his plans for coming to them and also he says Paul felt the need to vindicate his apostleship against the false charges which you know the the false teachers were bringing against Paul so that the people may not receive the gospel that Paul was sharing so Paul used his in yeah so Paul used his suffering in the ministry as a primary proof of his motives in the ministry has been very clear so with that we will also see what was the main theme in this letter main theme in this letter I literally said what was the main theme in this letter the true gospel ministry of Christ so we see that Paul reaffirms some of the previous admonitions here in this letter he tries to defend his apostleship and he answers the charges that come against him for what all for the sake of the church that he is trying to establish at the place called Corinth so Paul represents a message of reconciliation we see that in 2 Corinthians chapter 5 can I request one of you all to please turn to chapter 5 verse 18 to 20 now all things are of God who has reconciled us to himself through Jesus Christ and has given us the ministry of reconciliation that is that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself not inputting their trespasses to them and has committed to us the word of reconciliation now then we are ambassadors for Christ as though God were pleading through us we implore you on Christ to have be reconciled to God for he made him who knew no sin to be sin for us that we might become the righteousness of God in him amen thank you thank you Rosalind so we see three things here reconciliation of the world back to God and second we see reconciliation of church back to himself and third we see reconciliation of the repentant man to the church family which is very important that he also says Paul what as the weakness of a man as opposed to the power of God how? in chapter 12 verse 9 he says verse 9 I'll read from verse 7 onwards which talks about the thorn in the flesh so even before we could read what do you think the thorn in the flesh would be what is that Paul representing the thorn in the flesh as? ma'am the abundance of revelations that he received from Christ okay the thorn in the flesh something that is opposing him what is it? you all tell me brother Lubika, brother Subashish John, Nikki please go ahead, Jeffina like I just think that maybe it means passing through some pain which you cannot get that can't go off in any way something that you are compared to do something though it is painful to you let me stop it anyone else what is this thorn in the flesh that Paul talks about we'll read the verse maybe after that we'll get an idea can I request one of you all to read from chapter 7 sorry chapter 12 verse 7 to 10 at least I should be exalted above measure by the abundance of revelations a thorn in the flesh was given to me a messenger of certain to perfect me least I be exalted above measure concerning these things I pleaded with the Lord three times that I might depart but it might depart from me and he said to me my grace is sufficient to you for my strength is made perfect in weakness therefore most gladly I'd rather boost in my infirmities that the power of Christ may rest upon me therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in approaches in need, in prostitution, in distresses for Christ's sake for when I'm weak then I'm strong amen what a promise isn't it when I'm weak then I'm strong so we don't have to worry about our weaknesses because that is the area where God is going to glorify himself in our weaknesses that's the reason why God comforts Paul about the thorn in the flesh so before we could move on to verse 9 I would request what is this thorn in the flesh that Paul is talking about in verse 7 yes we are not doing a verse to verse study yes we will be studying in detail in our third year but then I just thought on this one particular verse we can ponder a little bit on that may help us anyone that's okay just feel free because there is no perfect answer anywhere so you can just feel free to share your thought that will definitely help each one of us in the class I think it refers to the hardship that we go through in the ministry yes brother thank you anyone else who would like to add to what brother Paul said is it the people who are trying to inflict the law of circumcision upon the gentiles converts and believers so you mean to say the judisers who were opposing him in many ways against him yes anyone else thank you Sally anyone else okay so what we see here is Paul has explained his vision and revelation in the first few verses in chapter 12 and then he tells them about the thorn in the flesh that has been given to him in verse 7 and apparently the very purpose of this thorn was yes that's what he is saying it benefits him because in verse 7 he says I'm weak then I'm strong so what happened it could be anything it could be the opposition from the judisers the false teachers who were opposing him or it could be some kind of weakness in his some kind of infirmity that he was going through in his body or it could be the opposition from the satan that's stopping the gospel from not spreading because keeping the background of this current church that we just studied it was known for its sinful immoral lifestyle just imagine Paul carrying the gospel to a place which has felled with darkness imagine there would be so much of opposition for the good news for the good news and here we see Paul seeking God Paul prayed three times pleading with the Lord and Lord gave him a reply saying that my grace is sufficient for you for my strength is made perfect in your weakness yes we see Paul been defending his apostleship all that is there but one man against many you see one man against many but then God is saying he's strengthening Paul Paul don't give up don't look at your weakness I'm greater than that my grace is sufficient for you go on keep doing what you're doing leave the result to me don't worry about how many people maybe opposing you don't worry about the things that are coming against you don't worry if it is an infirmity don't worry about it whatever the thorn in the flesh he's talking about see one thing that we know is scripture needs to interpret scripture when we see about in the Old Testament in Numbers 33 verse 55 here we see the thorn is used as a metaphor for the enemies of the Israelites so some scholars say it could be the false teachers or the judicers who are trying to oppose this is what Paul was addressing for the scholars say different ways so despite what could be the reason but what we need to know in general is there was an opposition that Paul faced now today in our class as we are listening to this scripture we may have opposition in different ways we may face different challenges despite our challenges despite the opposition from a man or from the enemy or from any kind of infirmity what should be focused on focus on the Lord don't focus on your weaknesses sometimes weakness can raise as big as a mountain as I say this with my personal experience yes the weakness that even each of us fight through every day can be as big as a mountain but then your God is asking us to take courage be bold in your weakness boast in your weakness no matter what challenge you are going through let not that challenge stop you from what God wants you to do stop you from the call of God from fulfilling the purpose of God go beyond it push yourself to go beyond it do not get discouraged because the word of God says when you are weak then I am strong when you are weak God can strengthen you in that area that weakness may become a testimony to glorify God's power the time when we say I give up Lord is when God shows up just like how he showed up to Moses just front of the Red Sea Moses never heard that God could part of Red Sea but then he gave up he said Lord you do it and we see God parting the Red Sea not only to Moses to all his servants God has been so faithful they all had their own weaknesses and challenges in their life there was not one without any weakness or challenge they were all normal being like us and in their weakness in their challenge God showed up that's the reason like how God strengthened Paul in the scripture verse 9 says my grace is sufficient for you for my strength is made perfect in your weakness so each of us let's take courage be strengthened in God in Christ that we will definitely be an overcomer when we see God to help us to overcome our weakness overcome our challenges overcome the opposition that comes against us as God was with Paul so he shall be with each of us so with that we will move on but before that I saw Lubega raises and over to Lubega there is a Bible that I have it is the ex-Paul's sister study Bible which is like saying that the difficulties is mentioning in 2nd Corinthians chapter 12 verse 7 can be traced to again 2nd Corinthians chapter 11 verses 23 and 27 and when I read there he says are they ministers of Christ I speak as a fool are more in labors more abundant in stripes about measure in prison more frequently in death often of the Jews five times I received I received 40 stripes save one twice I was beaten with the road once I was turned twice I suffered thrice I suffered shipwreck at night and day I have been in the deep like that like that so it actually looks that the man was in defend himself he had suffered a lot of things faster yes yes yes brother Lubega it could be that because Paul writes in one of his letter saying that I'm not sure whether it is in this letter I'm not getting the verse but then here he says I bear the marks of Christ I bear the most of anyone I bear the marks of Christ yes the persecution that he faced when compared to anyone else was much more but even in the persecution that he faced God protected him till the appointed time God was with him yes in even in Acts chapter 14 I guess where he was stoned to death and he was dragged out of city we did address when we were studying on the book of Acts on this one area where he was stoned to death yes person acts 14 yeah and he was dragged out of city supposing him to be dead yeah 14 verse 19 see that and then however when the disciples gathered around him he rose up and went into the city so here it does not say what did the disciples do gathering around Paul but then one thing that we all know about is these disciples are the apostles where the men of prayer so definitely they would have prayed gathering around him and people those days were very good in stoning they will stoned people to death okay so here we see that he was stoned to death and then supposing that he is dead they dragged him out of the city and then we see all the disciples gathered around him and next day morning he rose and he went into a different city see he does not say that he rested well till he recover no a man who's been stoned to death he would have you know he his body would have had many injuries but then beyond that he got up and he walked here it does not talk about any supernatural healing but here we see that God raised him okay he was not completely dead God raised him and then he moved to carry the gospel for him like every minute that he lived on this earth he must share the gospel that's what he says oh to me if I do not share the gospel for me to live is Christ and to die is game he carried the gospel for him every minute costed him that he need to share to somebody else so wherever we see him in the shipwreck he's been ministering to God he was rescued he went to the land of Malta he shared the word of God and he was in the prison he shared the word of God so wherever he is all that he knows to share the gospel so what was in him is what he brought out during difficult times we see one thing continuously out of him is sharing the love of Christ sharing the gospel of Christ this is something that we need to learn from life of Paul we also see his own life life as a pattern of ministry so every ministry should be a ministry of as we study this letter it should be a ministry of comfort and deliverance the ministry should also have forgiveness it should be spirit filled life and faith reconciliation approving a restoration and giving being a blessing to others yes we need to be meekness but even in that meekness we should be yet bold to defend the gospel yes in the ministry we will also face suffering we need to be humble and we need to discipline ourselves do not give up when the opposition comes or when we go through any persecution we should not give up but then hold on to God God will defend us God will lead us and be strengthened this is what we learn from the gospel I mean from the letter of the Corinthians is there anything that you would like to add or share yes in this letter we see we share some more interesting details about his life a personal experience than in any other letter in the second Corinthians he shares several experiences in the life of Paul that has been found in this letter where he escaped from Damascus in a basket and he's been caught up into the third heaven the revelations that he had and he also shares some of his personal struggle that we just discussed and personal suffering in the ministry he also shares his issues related to gifting and stature he encouraged people you know one of to be a blessing it's blessed to to give than to receive you know he talks about it in this letter he prepares them how offering been made to offering when we give we need to give the chair full heart and he collected the offering for the Jerusalem church and he also modeled how we need to give liberally out of our own property or willingly beyond our ability and he says we need to give to God first he emphasizes on something on giving giving and giving so you know by making yourself poor so that others can be made rich or sowing generously leads to bontiful reaping you know many as such you can talk about you know in generally is overall talking about being generous generously bless the ministry because the Lord's work need to continue and we as believers we need to so what God is given we need to give others that's why God is blessing us to bless others and God is raising us to be a blessing and strongly believes that and he encourages every believer to be a blessing to the other yeah I would like to share anything add anything first I have a question yes please brother I read in one one of the books that claims that probably part of the just as you say that the third the later that he wrote after the first one might have been part of it is found in 2nd Colinthians chapter 6 and verse 7 also there is a book that told me that I was reading and it was like that part of that later again can also be found in 2nd Colinthians chapter 10 and onwards because we can see how he changes his tone how he's now doing a lot of apologetics and a lot of authority showing them even what he had kept quiet all in his letters so I don't know your take about that first time maybe they may be written many letters but this is what the scholars say they have 4 letters first one was lost 2nd one is what we have as 1st Corinthians 3rd one was lost and part of 3rd one letter is recorded in the 2nd Corinthians this is what the scholars have said but not much clearly so whatever we have has been preserved for that it may minister to us and we may learn what was happening in the church of Corinthians how Paul carried the gospel to the place that was full of sin and the opposition that he faced despite the opposition how we did not give up but how the gospel was shared and how we defended this and how we can go beyond our ability and share the gospel despite the persecution that he faced he never gave up there is a lot of learning that we could get but preservation of the letters we are not sure even the scholars are not too sure so whatever we have received is what is there in the gospel so what is there is what is there in 1st and 2nd Corinthians is what we have right now some say the traces of those lost letters are here may be because he is trying to reply to that letter so in his reply the tone the questions that he is trying to answer the areas that he is defending the area that he is personally sharing because there is no continuity from the 1st letter the 2nd letter so they try to say that yes the 3rd letter which was lost may be had some questions pertaining to the 2nd letter of this letter is that okay Loubaker thank you so much Basta yeah so okay and yes so I would like to close this class with the word saying that Jesus is the one who comforts us in our suffering reconciles us to God and gives strength to our weaknesses this is something the essence of this letter that we need to keep in our mind when we remember the letter to Corinthians we need to know that Jesus is the one who can comfort us the way he comforted Paul he is there to comfort us in our sufferings, in our persecution and our weaknesses God will be our strength and he is here to reconcile God I would like to end this letter with that and yes we can is there anyone would like to add or share something before we could end this session or we can get into a time of prayer time is up okay let's close the session with the word of prayer can I request one of you all to please close in prayer ma'am can I yes Rosalind please thank you Lord hallelujah thank you Father hallelujah wonderful heavenly Father thank you Lord thank you for your goodness, for your mercy thank you for this wonderful session that we had Lord so many things to learn from your word Lord thank you for this privilege though Lord thank you Lord as the word says Father God that your grace is sufficient for us oh Lord that your grace we are nothing we can do nothing Lord Father we ask you that you God each and every one of us Father God that your grace be multiplied in our lives Lord in the name of Jesus thank you Lord Lord though we may have many weaknesses in our lives Lord but you always remain faithful to us Father God Lord we take our eyes away from you Father God at times Father God when we are weak but Father God we pray today Lord give us the grace that we may fix our eyes upon you oh Lord for everything that we need in our lives and even to run this race that you have said before us oh Lord with passion and with endurance Lord to fulfill your call upon our lives Daddy God thank you Lord Father like Paul we too might say that Daddy God that when I'm weak then I'm strong Lord we are strong in you Lord thank you Lord Jesus for your strength for your grace for your mercy also Lord I pray bless the dear pastor Lord God anoint her and use her for your glory Lord she has been a blessing to us oh Lord may she be a blessing to nations in the name of Jesus Lord to you we give all the glory honor and praise in Jesus mighty name we pray Amen Thank you so much thank you Rosalind for praying thank you so much for joining in today's session God bless have a great day see you all tomorrow with the next book. Thank you God bless


And today itself, if we examine, it is admissibility of documents marking an exhibition. And Mr. Prabhakar, who has created his niche, the Madurai High Court. And therefore, once the topics come, which requires an interplay of various sections, we ask Mr. Prabhakar and he has been kind enough to accept our request. And before we proceed for the session, before that, the normal request which we keep on making, keep maintaining the social distance, keep on wearing the mask, just as we saw that the resource person was wearing. If he can wear in the office, it shows that what amount of precautions are required today to maintain good health. As they say, if wealth is lost, nothing is lost. But if health is lost, something is lost. But today is not the question where we always read and spoke about if correctors lost, everything is lost. But today, yes, with the knowledge we can always. Is it audible? Somebody has written that it's not audible. Mr. Prabhakar, it is audible? Yeah, yeah. Somebody had written. Yeah. So the question is only of the corrector building by the corrector building in the sense if we learn the legal nuances and professional skills, as we all on this platform always take sessions on social as a resource skills and professional skills, more particularly of the lawyers. Without taking much time, I would request Mr. Prabhakar to take things forward. And we will be sharing the notes where in the judgments would be referred to Mr. Prabhakar. It's being shared on the WhatsApp groups. As soon as Mr. Prabhakar starts, my team will share the notes on the, beyond us, you'll see WhatsApp group. You can connect with that. If you're not connected, we are also sharing the WhatsApp number where you can join us on the group and have the notes. Meanwhile, you can also like, subscribe and share and comment on the Beyond Law CLC group to have the insights of previous sessions, including of Mr. Yeah, Prabhakar. Over to you, Mr. Prabhakar. Thank you. Good evening everybody. Good evening, Mr. Prabhakar. These are testing times. I request everybody to wear masks and then be patient to take your vaccine. The shortage is not only a manufacturer of vaccine, but the shortage is due to the raw material. Be patient and try to take all the tests. Coming to the topic of this day, a disability of documents, marking and exhibition. I think it involves civil procedure, the evidence act, registration act and stamp act as well. We all know that the admissibility of the document in many a case has to be done before the trial court or otherwise we miss the bus. It is not a question of arguing before or canvassing before the appellate court, except in case of a lack of registration. Therefore, one should be vigilant before the trial court when the documents are marked and admitted in evidence. There is a whole lot of difference between introducing a document, marking the document and then proving the document. Introducing a document is the stage of the proceedings, either in the client or in the state or in the replication. The second is the reception of the documents or the admitting of the documents. The reception will take place probably before the trial has commenced because the civil procedure court has got its own system where it would say that the documents which have been filed before the issues have been frayed can be taken as evidence subsequently. But what has happened after the amendment in 1999 and subsequently a comprehensive amendment to that in 2002 of the civil procedure court? We find that the law has moved because we don't take any evidence in chief, instead we go for an affidavit. In the form of affidavit we do two things. One is to introduce in evidence the pleadings or a document which is not even available in the hands of the party which he wants to generously plead in the affidavit. Second is the document itself. Before 2002, as the party has to get under the marks to admit the document, the question of letting in the evidence without the document in possession or custody to be shown to the court doesn't arise at all. Therefore after 2002 we have to change ourselves between the last part of this session. First, what is the marking of the documents? What is the marking of the document? What is the civil procedure court? After the filing of the pleadings, we were not in a position to file the documents at the time of the pleading. We can always file an application seeking the leave of the court to file the documents. Then the court can allow such an application if there is a condemnation, if the delay has to be turned off. In 99.99 personal cases, the courts generously allow such an application if it is before the file. It is only the problem when the evidences are closed and the party wants to introduce a document which is not available in the team and we kept quiet. Suddenly if you accept the piece somewhere and want to file a document that the court has to take cockney sense of the fact of why the document has not been filed earlier and whether this document will have any impact on the case to decide the real controversy between the parties. The marking of the document has got two or three stages. One is simply by filing the appointment and along with the appointment you introduce documents and the court will receive the document and then it can mark the document. It can also be done by way of a pension. Normally it happens when some of the evidences are over before the court and one party wants to bring in a document which the other party did not oppose. Then he can say that instead of letting the party get into the box, the document can be taken in the court by marking the same. But we do remember that marking a document is different from proving a document. The fact of the matter is that merely if the court gives an endorsement of marking the document as found in the trial court either on the side of the plaintiff or the petitioner or the defendant or the respondent. Mere marking is not a proof but some document requires something else to be done to prove the same. Say for example, a customary disposition or a gift as contemplated under the Chancellor of Property Act or a mod game which requires two attesting witnesses and at least one of them is examined under Section 68 of the Act or in case of a customary disposition under Section 63 of the Constitution Act that document is not, does not amount to prove even if the piece is marked. But the point for conservation without going into Section 63, 65 and 60, late at the end of the Act. First I would like to bring to the notice of this forum that mere marking of a document is not, does not amount to prove. Straight away, 1972 for SCC, page 562, Saith Karajeh, Kim Chan versus Elemati Satyam, 1972 for SCC, page 562. Second decision is, Narbala Devi Gupta versus Virendra Kumar Jaiswal, 2003, 8 SCC, page 74. There are lots of people who show that the mere marking of a document, does not amount to prove. These two people show that the document is merely because being interviewed in the evidence, does not amount to prove. There are certain circumstances under Section 60, say for example Section 60 of the Registration Act which speaks about a prima facie presumption with regard to execution in case of a document with this register. Probably there is an exception in case of a bill or a settlement or a gift. But in case of a sale deed or a exchange, where it does not require any attestation under law, the mere registration itself presumption can be drawn that this document is true. And if any party wants to challenge the same, it is for you to bring in evidence to prove that it's not true. Therefore, mere marking of a document by itself does not amount to prove. But what happens in a trial court, in case of a bill, a settlement, a disposition or a gift or a mod game, if it is really challenging in the readings, normally the beneficiary will get into the box and try to introduce the same evidence. Say for example, the bill, the bill will speak from the grave attestator is not available. And therefore in all probability the beneficiary will come into play and try to introduce the same at the first instance. In some cases I have seen that the beneficiary, even though he is a party to the list or a sue, is not entitled to bring the document namely a bill. I am receiving message that the audibility is slightly poor. Probably the mic is slightly at the distance. Is it good, sir? I am audible, sir. Perfect. In case of a bill or a beneficiary gets into the box because the testator is not available. There were some cases where the courts have come to a conclusion that the beneficiary, even though he is a party to the list, cannot introduce such a bill by marking the same and it is for him to bring the attesting witness to mark the same. But there is a judgment of the division bench of the Meghra cycle where it would say that normally the plaintiff being one of the beneficiary or the defendant one of the beneficiary in respect of a bill will try to introduce the same by filing the same. What is wrong in filing a document and the court will not take into account unless the attesting witness comes into the box and to prove the same. Therefore, whether or not the beneficiary brings into existence the document and in case of a gift instead of if the executant is alive or the attesting witness has to come after him, it is possible for the party to bring in evidence or marking the document or admitting the document. Please do remember that by marking such a document, it will not amount to prove. However, the courts have held that if you allow the party to mark the document and keep quiet without making an objection with regard to the manner in which it has been tried to be proved, you cannot come before the appellate court and challenge the same that an attesting witness has not been called to prove the same. Therefore, be careful that at the time of admitting the document, whether it is a will, mortgage or any document for that matter, at the time of marking the document, if you want to challenge it, you mark your objection, record the objection before the court so that if the attesting witness doesn't come, please you can say before the court that it has not been proved in accordance with the law, namely in section 68, they have been challenged. Therefore, where marking is not enough, the objection has to be done at the time of marking so that the mode of proving a document has to be followed by the party who wants to introduce this. There are two things available. One is if a document is completely or totally inadmissible for want of registration. And a document which is admissible in Newton, subject to certain things which you have to follow under law, namely in case of a will or a settlement or a give, the document is perfectly admissible in law, but you have to examine an attesting witness. It is different from lack of registration. The law makes a clear distinction that if a document has not been registered in accordance with the law and if the document is allowed to be embarked, then the party who wants to challenge it can challenge it before the trial court or even before the appellate court due to want of registration of a document. But the want of registration of a document is different from mode of proving a document. In case of a will or a settlement or a mortgage as I have said that so long as the document is marked, it is not enough, but you must be vigilant at the time of introducing the same in evidence to object that unless the attesting witness come to the court, this document cannot be allowed to be termed as proved before a court. Therefore, in cases where the challenge is not on the basis of registration, but on the basis of a mode of proving a document, then be careful and vigilant that the document cannot be allowed to be proved unless it has been the procedure has contemplated and the law has been followed. This can also happen in case of a stamp duty. You know that a stamp duty has got a special place in the early part of this last century. And in fact, I would say even up to 70s and 80s of the last century, the courts have never cared about the stamp duty at all. It was more oriented towards justice delivery. Now the courts have now come around to view that the stamp duty which is due to the state has to be collected from the party. The courts have become vassal raja. Therefore, in cases of a stamp duty, the courts have become vigilant now. But there are two sections which we have to bear in mind section 35 and 36 of the Evidence Act. Section 35 would show that a document which is required to be stamped as contemplated under the stamp act has not been sufficiently stamped. Then it cannot be used for any purpose. Take the language under section 35 of the stamp act which says it cannot be used for any purpose. Therefore, if a stamp has not been affixed in the document in a proper manner or there was total lack of stamp duty or partially it has not been paid. Only are it not fully paid. Then the document cannot be used in evidence for any purpose meaning thereby even for collateral purpose such a document cannot be used. Secondly, there is one section 36 which is said if a document has been admitted in evidence ignoring section 35 or where objection has not been raised under section 35 and the document has been allowed to be admitted and marked as exhibit then that court has no jurisdiction whatsoever to revisit this same. Please do remember that once this change of marking a document or admitting a document is over the question of seeking stamp duty doesn't arise at all. There is a provision. What is that provision? Under section 61 of the stamp act when the matter went to the upload court, the upload court can feel that the stamp duty has not been paid properly. It can refer the matter to the register of stamps or the collector of the stamps to collect the money. But the court cannot issue the document from consideration for rendering justice. Therefore, there are two things under section 35 you must make an objection at the time of exhibiting the document or admitting the document. That the stamp duty has not been paid. If you allow the same or if you have missed the bus, then section 36 would come into play. You are afraid to see. You cannot challenge the document on the ground of lack of stamp duty. Three, under section 61 of the act, the upload court has got a right to refer the matter to the collector for collecting the appropriate stamp duty with the penalty. But the court cannot stop the proceeding. The court must rely upon the document as though it has been sufficiently stacked. What is that for any purpose? The any purpose that has been interpreted including a collateral purpose. Come to the first stamp duty objections. The first of the judgment is AAR 1961 Supreme Court, page 1655. Xavier Chen vs. Pukraj Surana. Three judges of the Honorable Supreme Court interpreted section 35 and 36. And the fact that section 36 is there in the statute could show that the stamp duty objection has to be raised at the earliest point of time before the document is exhibited or admitted in evidence. It's not the question of receiving the document. Please do remember that this stamp duty has to be collected, not at the time of filing the suit or not at the time of filing the document along with the written statement. Not at the time of framing the issues, but only when the document is admitted in evidence. Why tell you? The framers of the statute never thought that this should be a hindrance for giving justice. Therefore, a case which has been filed on the basis of a document which is insufficiently stacked may ultimately get settled between the parties before ever the party admits the document in evidence. In such cases, the court has no jurisdiction to ask for stamp duty. Therefore, if at all stamp duty has to be paid, it will come into play only at the time of admitting the document and not at the time of filing the suit or filing the statement, etc. Therefore, even if the court says that you have to pay the stamp duty at the time of filing the suit, kindly refuse. It can't be done. It can be done only at the time of admitting the document. You can always take into account that before admitting the document in account, there is a possibility of the matter being settled or being compromised during the parties. And in such a case, there is no need or necessity to pay the stamp duty. In many a state, we can say that the stamp duty, a maximum limit of 10 times is being collected, which is more penal in nature. The second judgment is here you have 1978 Supreme Court, page 1393, Ram Ratan v. Bajrang Law. Ram Ratan v. Bajrang Law, 1978 Supreme Court, page 1393. An interesting judgment where an objection was raised at the time of admitting the document. Then after almost the trial was over, the party was at the time of admitting the document and objection was raised. And the court instead of deciding the same then and then postponed the same. Saying that the objection with regard to the stamp duty will be decided at the time of disposing of the suit or the time of passing the judgment. This was an endorsement made by the file church. It was contented that once the document is admitted, the question of asking for stamp duty doesn't arise. And therefore the court should not pass an order at the time of pronouncing the judgment that one has to or to compel the party to pay the stamp duty with the penalty as a condition to make the judgment operative. This went up to the Honorable Supreme Court. The Honorable Supreme Court said that an objection has to be raised at the appropriate time, namely at the time of admitting the document. And if the objection should have been decided then and there itself. But in this case, the court has not exercised its judicial mind at the time of admitting the document. On the other hand, it has kept it in abeyance postponed till the pronouncing the judgment. Therefore section 35 speaks about judicial determination of the court fees or the stamp duty. If there was no judicial determination then even afterward the court can compel a party to pay the stamp duty with the penalty. But this is an exception, exception in the sense and objection was raised. And this objection was taken into account by the court and the court has kept the matter in abeyance till the time of pronouncing the judgment. As in the case where a party objects and in spite of the objection, the court did not pass an order and allowed the party to proceed with the trial. There was no endorsement that it has been kept in abeyance. Can the court revisit the issue thereafter? Section 35 says that it cannot be used for any purpose and it has to be admitted. Such an admission before the document is admitted one has to raise the objection. The example which I am giving you is a case where an objection was raised but the court did not determine the sale and left to the matter proceed with the trial. Quite unfortunate but even in such a cases I am of the view that once the document has been admitted without reserving then the question of the court revisiting the issue does not arise. Therefore, if a party wants to make an objection, the lawyer should be vigilant and request the court that the stamp duty issue has to be decided then and there itself. It's not the question of postponing beyond the trial to be pronounced at the time of judgments in the judgment. The third case is a 2007 Supreme Court page 637 equivalent 2006 11 ACC page 331, Shyamlal Kumar versus Shusrit Kumar. This is a case where the court went into the mode of proving a document that too with regard to the stamp duty. Discussion section 35 and 36 and came to conclusion that an objection has to be raised. Once an objection with regard to stamp duty is raised, it has to be decided then and there itself. The court should not postpone it. Section AR 1978 Supreme Court is an exception and the court should be vigilant in seeking the stamp duty at the appropriate time. Assuming for a moment, in a case where a document has been protected at the plate and in the statement it has been challenged on the ground of lack of stamp duty and registration, subsequently the document has been allowed to be marked without the stamp duty being paid. Can the court take into account these statements made or the pleadings in the written statement about the admissibility of the document as though it has been objected and can be decided at the time of trial? The point of consideration is it is not the question of postponing it by the party. It is a question of postponing the decision by the judge. Therefore, there should be an objection and this objection should be considered by the court and then to pass an order. If there is an objection and whether that objection has been considered and whether an order has been passed, there are three stages. In the case on hand with an hypothetical question, I said that there is a pleading with regard to the lack of stamp duty. But whether the court has exercised its mind or whether it has postponed, merely if the party has left it alone and then he cannot at the time of argument say that the document requires stamp duty, I have already raised it in the written statement. Raising such a plea in the written statement is not enough. You have to raise such an objection at the time of parking the document or admitting the document and compel the judge or force the judge to pass an order then and there itself. That is the only way of compelling a party to pay the stamp duty and you cannot keep quiet. Suddenly you woke up from the slumber and argue the matter stating that the case where I have taken such a stand in the written statement itself and therefore it should be allowed. That is not possible under law. The second point is collateral purpose. What is a collateral purpose under law? The collateral purpose as we see is, collateral purpose is contemplated under section 49 of the Registration Act. Section 49c speaks about three things and one of them has been deleted by Act 48 of 2000, namely Jai Harun Jaitri's amendment. With regard to section 53a of the Transfer of Property Act, where an agreement of sale can be used in the evidence as a shield. If you have done something in furtherance of the contract and you are in possession of the property, you can retain such a position. But section 49c was amended that in such cases, a document has to be registered otherwise 53a will not come into play. But at the time of considering such an amendment, it was found that an agreement of sale, an unregistered agreement of sale can be used as an evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance that was left untouched. In fact, there was a discussion before passing Act 48 of 2000. And it was found that India predominantly and agriculture country people are living in rural areas. This should not be taken away as an amount to deprive the right hander an agreement which they do normally by sitting under a tree rather than coming to the register office. Therefore that was kept. And the second is under section 49c is the collateral purpose. What is a collateral purpose? Many of us, we do think that a collateral purpose is an ancillary purpose to the main purpose of the document. That is not correct. No purpose can be called as an ancillary purpose. Collateral purpose means a purpose which runs parallel to the terms of the contract. Therefore, don't think that a collateral purpose means that it is an ancillary purpose. Ancillary purpose is also a purpose in the document. Therefore, you cannot use the document unless it is registered. Collateral purpose means a purpose which runs parallel to the terms of the contract. Namely, because famously we take into account the character of position which runs parallel to the terms of the contract. But if your person wants to use a document for collateral purpose, a document which has not been registered, but do remember section 49c is only under the registration act. Therefore, if there is a lack of or insufficiently stamp to the document cannot be used for collateral purpose, unless the stamp duty is paid. That is the point number one. Point number two, the collateral purpose has to be seen from the angle that what is the intention of the party in introducing such a document. If we introduce an unregistered document to show that the character of the position, then does it require a decision by the court at the time of admitting the document? No, admitting the document the court can see only whether the document has been sufficiently stamped. The court cannot infer at that time of admitting the document what is the purpose for which it is to be used. Maybe after trial it can do that. There are judgments which say that the time of even admitting the documents, the court can find what is the purpose for which it is used. Say for example, in a suit for injunction, the party wants to introduce a document stating that I am in possession of the property to defeat the right of the plaintiff who has got a title. The main purpose for the suit for injunction is to find out whether the plaintiff is in possession of the property. Can that possession be a collateral purpose in such a case? Secondly, what is a collateral purpose? Whether it is collateral to the document or collateral to the relief. Collateral purpose to my mind is not in respect of the reliefs or form, but collateral to the document. It doesn't speak about section 49c, it doesn't speak about anything at all. It speaks about collateral purpose. Quite often we are forced to find out what is a collateral purpose and whether an objection can be raised at the time of marking the document or postpone it at the time of pronouncing the judgment. Whether it is at the time of admitting the document or at the time of pronouncing the judgment. One has to keep in mind that there are a lot of judgments which say that the collateral purpose is a purpose collateral to the document. But there are judgments where in a suit for injunction the court has come to a conclusion that an unregistered salee cannot be used for the purpose of showing that you are in possession of the property because the suit for injunction, the possession is main purpose and not a collateral purpose. Why the unfortunate? Without addressing the issue that this collateral purpose is contemplated is collateral to the document. That's why I said an ancillary purpose is not a collateral purpose. A purpose which runs parallely to the terms and conditions of the document alone can be called as a collateral purpose. Say for example, a party wants to sell the property and there is a sale deal. This is an unregistered sale deal. Possession, whether it is collateral to the document or it is collateral to the nature of the relief, a shortfall in the suit for injunction. My point of view is that in such a case is character of possession can be found out from an unregistered document whatever the nature of the suit. You give such a wide delivery namely that in a suit for injunctions, possession being a main relief or the main thing which has to be found out. It cannot be collateral is not the right approach. Collateral purpose is a purpose to the document and not to the relief shortfall. Assuming for a moment these types of judgments are correct then what will happen? A person who himself as an executive document wants to avoid the sale knowing full well that it is an unregistered document. He can mold the relief in such a way to avoid the teeth of law or to put the other man in a disadvantageous position. That is camouflaging your relief or by camouflaging these readings that should not be perfect. My view is that if it is for a collateral purpose, that purpose should run parallel to the main terms and conditions of the contract with the parties. The first judgment which I would like to refer even though it is not the oldest, it is one. This year 2008, Supreme Court Weekly page 4829. Equal in 2008-5 CTC page 260, Shaha and Sans versus development consultant. Shaha and Sans versus development consultant. That was a case of terms of tenancy. A party wants the court to believe from an unregistered document, an unregistered lease deal about the terms of the contract. The court has said that lease is a term of a contract, a condition of the contract. Therefore such a document cannot be permitted to be used to prove the tenancy. The second is an interesting judgment. Year 1980 Allahabad page 180. Ratan Lal versus Hari Shankar. That was a case where the party wants to introduce a document, an unregistered document to show that the right of the plaintiff got extinguished under the document. That was an unregistered document. A document which requires registration but has not been registered. But a party wants to use the document to show that the right of the plaintiff had already been extinguished under the contract. Whether it is a political progress. Now we have to take the aid of section 17 of the registration act. Which would say that any document which create a right, limit the right or extinguish the right of a party, it requires registration. Therefore the purpose for which the document can be executed and compulsorily registered are not only for creating a right, but also for extinguishing the right of a party. Therefore, the Allahabad I quote rightly pointed out that even in cases where you want to use the document to extinguish the right of a party, then it is not a collateral purpose, but it is a main purpose. Do remember in such a cases, you can even object at the time of marking the document or admitting the document. But the court has to, in such a cases, can't decide the matter in many a time. Therefore it will postpone the issue to be argued at the time of completing the trial because it has to take the evidence on record to find out. But in many a case, the document by itself would speak. There is no need for you to go ahead if you want to prevent the party from letting any evidence and unnecessarily burdening the court with the volume of evidence which the court cannot go into the time of pronouncing judgment. What is the use of allowing a party to admit the document, move along with the trial and take evidence and then add on some more witnesses to the document to prove the document and talk. Therefore, in all such a cases where one must object at the time of admitting the document that know this document, either create a right or limit the right or reduce your right or extinguish your right. In all such cases, the document requires registration. This is not a collateral purpose. It is a main purpose to the document. The second, the third judgment is Pajaj Auto Limited v. Bihari Law, year 1988 Supreme Court, page 1806. Pajaj Auto Limited v. Bihari Law, year 1988 Supreme Court, 1806. That was an interesting judgment. When an unregistered document was sought to be introduced to show that the person has sublet the property, the documents speak that the rights of the parties would show that there is a prohibition with regard to subletting the property. The party brings in evidence by way of an unregistered document stating that this document can be used to show that it is to sublet the property. The courts are sublesing. It is also a term of the contract. Therefore, if it is prohibited, it cannot be called as a collateral purpose. The document cannot be introduced as though it is for a collateral purpose. The terms of the contract are very many. It may be the years, it may be the consideration, it may be the property, it may be the intention of the party to lease out or sublet, etc. These are all terms of the contract. It is not a mere time or the period or even the consideration or between the parties that alone is the terms of the contract. Terms of the contract have very many facets in law. One of them is subletting the property. One of them is extinguishing the right or limiting your right under the contract. Then we come to some interesting judgment with regard to partitions. Normally, in this country, the partition among the members of the family takes place in many a time by way of an unregistered document. The court of late has taken the and slapped very many parties that these documents are inundated with evidence and therefore it cannot be liquid in two for any purpose. But there are three stages you know under the Hindu law how the partition takes place. Whether it is the Hindu law, even in a moment or another, it doesn't make any sense. Then what are the three stages? There is a severance of status, two, meets and bounds, three, delivery of possession. These are the three stages in a partition. If your partition of course requires, if the document says that there was a division in presenting, then the document requires registration. But if the document speaks about a past transaction that already a partition took place and we are recording a past transaction, then it does not require any registration because the partition is not a transfer under law. But once you say that under the document there was a division of the properties, then it must be registered, whether the document can be used and what purpose it can be used. For the first and third stage, namely severance of status and delivery of possession, no document is required. You are aware of the fact that under law, mere expression of an interest that I want to go away from the family, that expression can also be given by legal notice or even by a letter or even by a phone call provided with subject to proof that I want to go out, I want to divide. That is the date of severance of status to the parties. To show that there was a severance of status, no document is required and whether the document requires registration, then it does not require registration. Second, the third aspect namely delivery of possession. Delivery of possession is physical. Therefore, a party can show that already I have been put in possession of a specific extent of a property by letting in oral evidence, it does not require a document, it does not require registration. However, for the point number two of the three stages of the second stage, namely to prove there was a partition by meets and bounds, it requires a document and this document, if it says that it in presently the parties have divided the properties, it requires registration. Now, a party has got a partition list or a memorandum of lists or showing the division and it does not show you about the past transaction. A reading of it would show that what has been done under the document is to divide the properties on the day when the undocumented document was executed. The concept held that this document is admissible for two purposes. One is severance of status and another is delivery of possession. It cannot be used to show meets and bounds. If an unregistered document can be used for showing two purposes, do remember the document must be sufficiently stamped. If it is not stamped, it has to be stamped ten times. Therefore, registration is not curable but an unregistered partition can be used for two occasions for delivery of possession and then severance of status. And whether with these two points, without going into the question of meets and bounds division, whether the court can come into conclusion there was a partition took place, there are very many cases which say that it is possible. Because once there was a severance of status and delivery of possession, unmistakably it shows that the parties have divided their properties and these two coupled with the subsequent events, the court can appeal the partition and that's done. I'll give you two examples. 1978, 1 MLJ, page 248. Buraswamy versus Raja Kannan. Buraswamy versus Raja Kannan, 1978, 1 MLJ, page 248. And the second judgment is Kumaraswamy counter versus Aravagiri counter. Kumaraswamy counter versus Aravagiri counter, AIR 1974, Madras, page 239. AIR 1974, Madras, page 239. Both the cases after signing the Mullahs Hindu law came to the conclusion that in respect of unregistered documents, this can be taken into account to prove two things, namely severance of status and delivery of possession, the partition can also be held. The next judgment is a very interesting judgment. If at all anybody gets hold of the document, I think it is available in Manu Patra. You can download this judgment. 1970, ILR, Madras, page 636. Mohedin Abdul Qadir versus Mohamed Mohedin Umar. A fantastic judgment. It is a Bible on two aspects. About ouster and another is about collateral purpose. 155, remember 150 judgments have been referred to in that case. Two of the finest judges of the Madras High Court who delivered the judgment to unsung heroes. Fantastic judgment has got the grip of the entire subject on ouster with regard to the core sharers. And then about the collateral purpose where there was an unregistered release deal. An unregistered release deal has been used for the purpose of two things. One is there was a severance of status and the possession. Three, it was also used for another peculiar purpose from the date of that unregistered release deal. Possession becomes adverse and ouster can be inferred from the document. A judgment which any civil lawyer should hold doesn't require anything afterwards to see whether there is any change in law. There can't be any change in law. A judgment which has been quite often referred to but the problem is it runs into hundreds of pages. We may not be able to cite it and give the judgment to the court. But at least as a lawyer we can study the judgment and find out what is a collateral purpose. What is a collateral purpose? What is ancillary purpose? And then whether the purposes for which the document is used runs along with the term to the contract or it is a collateral purpose or not. Then next is the lot of confusion which has been raised with regard to the objection and the stage of objection to be raised. There was a judgment in 2001 between Shanti Lal versus state of Gujarat. Between Shanti Lal versus state of Gujarat, year 2001 Supreme Court 1158, year 2001 Supreme Court 1158, equivalent 2001 SCC 3, page number one. 2001 SCC 3, page number one. There was a criminal case, no less a person. It was a great courtship, Katie Thomas and Arun Kumar if I remember. There was a judgment where the court said that the objection being raised and during the course of trial the parties are putting the spoke in the wheel of justice and dragging the matter and taking the matter to the high court etc. It is according to the heart strike. That was a criminal case. The court said instead of doing all these things, you can receive the document and decide the same at the time of pronouncing the judgment. And an exception was given namely with regard to an unregistered and stamped duty. If it is unregistered and insufficiently stamped, then these two things can be raised at the time and all other things you can go to the judgment stage. You can even file a photocopy of the document. Whether you have laid the foundation and the section 65 doesn't matter at that stage. That's what the judgment. But CPC is not its own way of doing things. It may be a wishful think of two great judges but unfortunately a wrong judgment emanating from a criminal case and subsequently followed by the high courts. And the subordinate judiciary, quite unfortunately they say that whenever a judgment comes from the apex court and the court fees, the lower court's fee, that it is far more easier to adopt them rather than the law, they will willingly adopt. That has happened in this case. In spite of the fact that it was a criminal case, the court started using this judgment indiscriminately whether it is a criminal case or a civil case stating that the evidence science is one and the same for either the criminal case or a civil case. It's quite unfortunate. We are not talking about the evidence science alone. We are talking about the procedure contemplated and the civil procedure court. You can now take into account order 13.23 also I'll come there. This judgment, even though it cannot be followed in a civil case, started to trickle down quite unfortunately even today many of the judges in the subordinate judiciary follow the same. Fundamenting for a moment that this judgment has not been followed by the Supreme Court itself in AIR 2003 Supreme Court, page 4548. Venganajala counter versus Arul Meghu Visvesara Swami Temple. Venganajala counter versus Arul Meghu Visvesara Swami Temple. AIR 2003 Supreme Court, page 4548. There was a case where an unregistered document was introduced in evidence. Sorry, photo copy of the document was introduced in evidence and both the counsel on record relied upon the document and it was only a case of interpreting the document about the nature of the documents. Two courts have went into the contents of the document stating that both the parties rely on the document is only a question of interpretation. And it went to the High Court before the Merron High Court. If I remember 1998 MLG or something, where is Starship Sadashivam when you was then you was at the Merron High Court. He has chewed this photo copy stating that how this document was attributed in evidence. Then no foundation was laid. I am quite surprised this document was laid with the trial court in coming to conclusion and then reverse the judgment. The matter went to the effects court in 2003. It was after this between Santhi Lawal Panchal's case. Where the Lordship came to give you on the High Court's head stating that when the parties allowed the document to be marked before the trial court, it is only mode of proving a document. Whether it can be used as a secondary evidence under section 65 or not can be challenged before the trial court. When both the parties rely upon the document it was only a case of interpretation. The Honorable High Court should not have issued the same from evidence. In such a scenario, the court came to a conclusion that if at all there is an objection with regard to the photo copy being marked, it should have been done at the trial court at the time of admitting the evidence. Once it is admitted and parties are laid upon the document, it is not open for the court to go into the question that it is after all a photo copy. In many a case we now find a difficulty. I am not sure about the judicial academy where it reaches the judges that it is photo copies are untouchable. But the point that issue is photo copy can also be a secondary evidence. Under section 65 it can be done if a party wants to rely upon all those things by sufficiently laying a foundation. Then what is the wrong in it? Merely because it is a photo copy you can't throw away the document. You have to fulfill the conditions under section 65 of the Evidence Act. The third of the judgment on that score is AIR 2009 Bombay, page 398. Geeta Marine Services versus state of Maharashtra. And coming to order 13 rule 3 CPC. Take it for 10 minutes. Peculiarly this order 13 rule 3 has not been canvassed anywhere. It says even if a document has to be admitted, the document has to be issued from evidence. If it is inadmissible and irrelevant. If the document is irrelevant and inadmissible in law, then the document has to be issued from evidence. It can be done even after admitting a document. Then why you say that the document, if you say there is an objection, you should make an objection at the time of admitting the document. The point is two. If a person wants to file a document is totally irrelevant and immaterial to the case. Then at that point of time would may not know that subsequently one may find that it is an irrelevant document. It has nothing to do with the issue on hand. Then yes to the document. Otherwise you will be sowing the seed for further litigation on the basis of the document. Therefore, an irrelevant document has nothing to do with the stamp duty. Nothing to do with the registration, but it is irrelevant to the issue or the pleadings in the case. If it is irrelevant, then it can be assured. Second, inadmissible document. There are two kinds of inadmissibility. One is registration and another is the stamp duty. Registration, as I said, whether or not you make an objection, it can be canvas at the time of arguing the matter. Or you can even file an application. And that's out of 13, 2, 3 that this document has to be issued from evidence or to be deleted from the marking because it is inadmissible evidence. But there is a right. What is the right? Many of the court think that inadmissibility consists of two parts. One is the registration and another is the stamp duty. In both the cases, the court has got power to issue the document if the stamp duty is not correct. Inadmissibility spoken to under order 13 to 3 is only in respect of non-registration of documents. It is all subject to section 35 and 36 of the stamp rights. If at all they have any doubt, there is one of the oldest judgments. Satya Bhatti v. Raja, 1930 Madras weekly notes page 511. Satya Bhatti v. Raja 1930 Madras weekly notes MWM 511. Well, the lawsuit would say that inadmissibility has contemplated order 13 to 3 is only in respect of registration, non-registration and it is subject to section 36. Therefore, if you want to exercise 13 to 3 in respect of a stamp duty, it has been done before the document is admitted in evidence. Therefore, there are two things available. Stamp duty is a substantive law whereas CPC is a procedural law. Substantive law, when it is there, the procedural law being handmade of justice has to pay with a bail for section 36 or 35 of the stamp party. Therefore, my submission is that if any judge who wants to say that it is an inadmissible document because of stamp duty, I can issue it before pronouncing the judgment, notwithstanding the fact that we have crossed the stage of section 35 and 36 is not possible. Do remember, there is a judgment of the Merwas High Court which has said that it is not possible to issue such a document. And then, an unregistered mortgage deed. Sometimes these documents are used for the purpose of showing a contract, evidence of money transaction, not in respect of an immobile property. Normally, when you file a suit in respect of a mortgage, it is on the basis of a security of the property. But if it is an unregistered mortgage, then the party can use the document to show purely a money transaction between the parties. There are two judgments. One is 2004, two Andhra law times, page 367. Umede Bojo Ram v. Badla Ghandarkar, Umede Bojo Ram v. Badla Gangadhar. 2004, two ALT, page 367. The second judgment is 2008, five CTC, page 206, five CTC, page 206. Selvam v. Mohammad Ghani, Selvam v. Mohammad Ghani, 2008, five CTC, page 206. The third is Dr. Ratna Swami v. Selva Kumara Swami. Dr. Ratna Swami v. Selva Kumara Swami. I think this is the judgment of the Metronome Psycho recently in 2018 of his lordship Saravanan and Subbaya, AS number 35 of 27. These three judgments went into the question. In fact, there is also a judgment. If I remember 1947 Privy Council, where an unregistered document can be used for proving a money transaction, not affecting the immobile property. Use it as a bond, as a promissory loan for getting the money back.  But the larger question is whether the document has to be stamped and what is the stamp? Normally, in case of a mortgage, a suffix mortgage, it is 4%, ordinary mortgage is 1%, etc. And if it is a 10 times, it makes the document is unworkable. You will be paying the stamp duty for the money which you are going to receive from the other party. Therefore, this is not possible at all. But my point is, I am going to place it before the forum. A question put for thought, namely, a document which can be used for collateral purpose on the section 35 has to be stamped for the purpose for which the document has been drafted or for the purpose for which it is to be used. My submission is that a document which requires registration and stamp duty, namely like a mortgage, which has not been done. And if a party wants to use the document, in all probability, these documents would not be stamped for the market as a mortgage. And if you slap 10 times stamp duty, whatever the money which the party has to receive from the other party has to pay a stamp duty, what is the fund? Therefore, no court has given an interpretation about this thought. I am placing it before this forum for taking it forward, namely, why a document which is being used for money transaction. A party should affix stamp duty and penalty as though it is a mortgage. Is it not enough for the person to pay the stamp duty as a money transaction and use the document? I place it before this forum for taking it further, I think because we will be hearing it also at the conclusion. And then the last of the matter about the new approach to the admissibility. That's what I opened it after 2002. There was a problem with the removal of the filing of the chief of the way. Two things will crop up. One is, without a pleading, that will be introducing evidence. It may not be a documentary evidence, but the oral evidence which is not part of the pleading or the oral evidence in respect of a document which was never marked or it could not be marked. Say for example, an undigested shielded, you plead the document and by way of an affidavit you bring it all sword, but you cannot mark the document. What is the nature of such evidence in the affidavit? And secondly, what is the effect of these types of documents being filed after 2002? It has been discussed by a full bench of the Bombay High Court. In Hemendra Rasiklal versus Subodh Modi, 2008-06 Bombay CR 519, full bench. And second judgment is Bajaj Auto versus TVS Motor Company Ltd. An unreported judgment of his ladship Satya Narayana in application number 2647 of 2015 of the year 2016 of the Metras High Court to Bajaj Auto versus TVS Motor Company Ltd. In the full bench's discussion in length about the earlier judgment which I have cited about the AIR 2001 Supreme Court, 2003 Supreme Court, Bangalajala counter, Bipin Shantilal Panchalal etc. And subsequently the full bench of the Bombay High Court came to the conclusion that Bipin Shantilal Panchal is not a case in respect of a civil sword. It was a case of a criminal law and even otherwise the principle of stardesis will apply, namely the existing law which has been followed for more than a century by the lawyers as well as the judges, is to if an objection is made with regard to the marking of a document then it has to be decided then and there itself there is no question of postponing it. But it makes a difference that in case of filing an affidavit, affidavit contains evidence, oral evidence, document, container documentary evidence. The Bombay High Court distinguished these two things. It came to the conclusion that in case of oral evidence let in sarptitiously in the Chief Affidavit, its merits and demerits, admissibility, relevancy, materiality or immateriality of such an affidavit can be gone into at the time of pronouncing the judgment. And secondly in case of a document, these documents if an objection is raised it has to be decided then and there itself by the court rather. Therefore this was a new approach because before 2002 we don't have any affidavit. Once an affidavit does matter we all know how we are shaping it. It is not the party's version but it is the lawyer's version. The lawyer can bring in everything under the sun by way of an affidavit and stating that there is a pleading etc. And therefore what the opposite party will do if something is introduced which is inadmissible per se in the affidavit, can we go on having a trial within a trial? Therefore the Bombay High Court came to the conclusion that in case of such a pleading irrelevancy or immateriality of the pleading or in the affidavit by way of oral evidence this can be gone into at the time of pronouncing the judgment. But in case of a documentary evidence if an objection is raised it has to be decided then and there itself. Be vigilant that it is being done. Most of them is the family arrangement. I will take two or three minutes because I have given some of the judgment. I will refer only two of the judgment. Kale versus Deputy Director of Consolidation. There is a very famous case in the IAR 1978 in 1976 Supreme Court, page 807. Kale versus Deputy Director of Consolidation, IAR 1976 Supreme Court, 807. And it has been touched upon very recently by the Supreme Court. In Rabindra Kaur, Kale versus Manjil Kaur, IAR 2020 Supreme Court, page 3799. There was an apparent uncomfortability on the part of the judges when they were dealing with an unregistered family arrangement which is being acted upon by the parties. And the fact that it has happened before 1988 or before Act 39 of 2005 depicting the daughter of the right to the property. And now this document is being challenged as it is a unregistered and scamper etc. In 1976 the Supreme Court came to conclusion a family arrangement. It can be in respect of not only the subject matter but also in respect of other properties which is being brought to have an harmonious relationship with the parties. And this family arrangement is a distinct concept, unmindful of other things. This has to be appealed by the court of law to bring in harmony with the family. But it has not touched even though it felt that the uncomfortability in the scam duty and registration, the court has appealed the family arrangement. And therefore an unregistered family arrangement. And the inadmissible document as I have said when Justice Ismail in 1978-74 said that it is possible to prove two things, namely severance of status and delivery of possession. These two judgments of the High Court, a Supreme Court recently in 2020 with the Draewaals arriving at Draewaals case also the court felt that in case of a family arrangement it has got a special place in India. That should not be disturbed unless there is a compelling necessity to do so. Now to place before the final question which I always do with regard to this collateral purpose as I was dealing with it. Unregistered mortgage, when a person wants to use it for a money transaction, can this document can be used by paying a scam duty as though it is a money transaction. Or he must pay the scam duty and penalty as though it is a mortgage and then go for an ordinary money transaction soon. My view is that it is quite penal for a party to pay the scam duty at 10 times as though it is a mortgage and then still go for a money transaction. And in such a case the money transaction requires a scam duty. That scam duty in my opinion is enough. What section 35 says is it should be sufficiently stamped. It does not say purpose for which it is being used. My opinion is the scam duty can be collected for the purpose for which the document is used and not the purpose for which the document is crafted. I will place before this forum. Thank you. Thank you. Session went spot on and the amount of participants who are watching us live on the YouTube as well as Facebook and coupled with the fact that people that leave the platform showed that whatever you were speaking they all took it as visible and they just had a good diet of knowledge today. The question by Dilip John is quite big. Mr. Prabhakar you can yourself read it. In respect of Dilip John's question that the cross-examination of witness's eros copy of his swan after it filed in different proceedings was shown to him. The witness admitted that he had filed a set up before the tribunal. However subsequently an objection by his counsel was raised that the document was not a certified copy. The court recorded a mark of the document. Can the document be challenged on the ground that it is only a photocopy and not a certified copy? The point is it is a swan after it. Once there is an admission there is no need for the after it also to go into the court. It is like filing a deposition copy from one suit to another suit. A deposition copy can be admissible only if there is a person who swan data or who deposed his date. If he is available and came into the box under section 145 of the evidence hand that the deposition can be used only when a question is put to the party and if he gives an answer which is inconsistent with what has been already stated then for that particular purpose the document can be marked. Once there is an admission there is no question of marking this after it. It is only an after it and the question of marking it does not arise at all to my view because once it is admitted it is more like deposition given in a court of law like a chief after it. I said that it is mine. Then where is the question of marking the deposition? If it is as a deposition then it cannot be marked. If it is only in the form of a letter then on the basis of an admission it can be marked. There is no question of why it should not be done. Straight away I will refer to Vengadajala counter versus Arul Madhu Vishwasanath Swami temple where the court center in case of photography if it is admitted by the party it can be marked. There is also a judgment if I remember 2012 of the Delhi High Court which says the party admits the contents of the document or photocopy of the document then it can be admitted. This is by Chandrasekhar a photocopy of an agreement is marked by paying deficit stamp is paid. Now I want to mark the original document of photocopy. Should I pay stamp duty again? The question of paying a stamp duty on a photocopy does not arise at all. It can't be done. Only in case of an original it can be done. The law is settled. This is by Omesh. The testator executed registered will in 2016 and again in 2018 by revoking his earlier will of 2016 and died after one month of the execution of second will. The second will was challenged on basis of fraud and feeble state of mind of testator. In written statement the defendant though admitted the execution of the first will supported the second will. My question is that admission of execution of first will by defendant is sufficient for its proof or the plaintiff has to call the attesting witness to prove the same in terms of section 68. There is one judgment of the Supreme Court if I remember that in case of an admission in the bleeding or in the written statement it is enough that you need not examine the attesting witness if there is an admission of the document. Because it will come in contrary to the section 58 where there is an admission there is no need for a proof. 68 will come into play but under section 68 there is a specific provision which is said that not being a will if you say that there is a provision which is section 68 that not being a will provided it is not being a will admit a party admit the document then you need not examine the attesting witness. If it is a will whether you have to examine the problem is what has been admitted by the other party is only the execution. The execution is not enough to prove a will. You must prove the sound and dispersing state of the mind of the testator also. Therefore the provision under section 68 consists of two parts one is not being a will and another is only in case of other documents like a mortgage or a gift or a settlement and admission is enough you need not examine the attesting witness. In case of a will you have to do it. Second it is the only document by which you have to necessarily prove the mental state of the testator because the testator will not be alive to prove the same. Therefore my view is even otherwise because the once the second will is found to be a fraud. You cannot rely upon this document to show that the first will is true.  This is by Praveen Rahul. Evidence adduced are exhibited adduced during the trial but judge did not appreciate and refer the same to him in his judgment. What is the remedy? It is on the YouTube. That question is on the YouTube. What is the rational for promissory alone deficit stamp duty can't be collected for other documents. It can be admitted on payment of deficit stamp duty. The rational is to make the parties to be disciplined. The government should know that you have to register a document and if you take the chance of not registering then you have to pay penalty which is more of a taxing statute. There can't be any reason because there is no need for the parliament or the legislative to give any reason. Taxing can be unreasonable also. The YouTube was this only I will check it out on the field floor. So friends, as usual what we had initially at the first instance stated, we have already shared those judgments on the WhatsApp group and otherwise also was sharing the judgments. We are thankful to Krishna T. Trichy who was sharing all the judgments and we will be sharing these judgments again on the WhatsApp group. We have shared the number you can connect with us on the WhatsApp group for the latest judgments. The last question has been by Devdas. Just read that meanwhile I will tell tomorrow's session. In case of a missionary, it is a movable property. There is no need for a stamp or registration doesn't come into play at all. It is only a missionary, right? Thank you and before we park for the day today, we would acknowledge the insights given for the purposes of judgments by Krishna T. Trichy and above all for Mr. Prabhakar for giving the insightful sessions. And those who want to watch the previous webinars, they can like, share and subscribe to our Beyond Law CLC channel. And again, we would all request what Mr. Prabhakar had said and we had said at the first instance, keep on wearing the mask, do your vaccination and stay safe, stay home and in whatever manner you can contribute to the society socially, economically, morally. Keep on doing that. The world wants you and keep on doing it. And thank you Mr. Prabhakar for the session which was brought up. Namaskar and Jai Hind.