Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 622 (RAJ)

LR’s of Jodh Singh v. Lokendra Kumar

2013-03-29

BANWARI LAL SHARMA, GOVIND MATHUR

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.7.2012 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1014/2012. 2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner-plaintiff preferred a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents No. 1 and 2 herein as per provisions of Sections 88 and 188 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. During pendency of the suit the defendants submitted an application under Section 151 C.P.C. read with Section 49 of Registration Act with a prayer for not accepting unregistered and unstamped sale-deed produced by the plaintiff- petitioner in evidence. The application came to be accepted by the trial Court and a revision petition preferred before the Board of Revenue challenging the order aforesaid also came to be rejected. 3. In the writ petition the submission of plaintiff-petitioner was that the unregistered and unstamped sale-deed could have been admitted in evidence for collateral purposes. To substantiate the argument reliance was placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.B. Soha and Sons Private Limited v. Development Consultant Limited, (2008) 8 SCC 564 and Bondar Singh & Ors. v. Nihal Singh & Ors., AIR 2003 SC 1905 . 4. Learned Single Judge, after considering the arguments advanced, arrived at the conclusion that an unregistered document be used as an evidence for collateral purpose as provided in proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, but then, the collateral transaction must be independent of, or divisible from, the transaction to effect which the law required registration and a collateral transaction must a transaction not itself required to be effected by a registered document. If a document is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration, none of its terms can be admitted in evidence and that to use a document for the purpose of proving an important clause would not be using it as collateral purpose. 5. Learned Single Judge further held that Section 39 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 mandates that no instrument chargeable with a duty under the Act shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any persons having by law or consent of the parties authority to receive evidence shall be acted upon registered or authenticated by any such person or by any public officer unless such instrument is duly stamped. 6. 6. In view of the provisions aforesaid, a document duly not stamped cannot be admitted in evidence. 7. In appeal, the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner appellant is that for collateral purposes to the extent of proving the possession of the appellant plaintiff on the suit land, the unregistered and unstamped sale deed could have been admitted in evidence. 8. We do not find any merit in the argument advanced. The limits for accepting an unstamped document in evidence even for collateral purposes are well established. The collateral transaction if is independent of or divisible from the transaction to effect the law required registration and further that collateral transaction must a transaction not itself required to be effected by registered document, then only that could have been admitted. 9. In the instant matter the position is quite different. As per Section 39 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998, no instrument chargeable with a duty under the Act shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any person having by law or consent of the parties authority to receive evidence shall be acted upon registered or authenticated by any such person or by any public officer unless such instrument is duly stamped. The provisions of Section 39 of the Act of 1998 in no event can be ignored and, therefore, learned Single Judge rightly arrived at the conclusion that the order passed by the Board of Revenue does not suffer from any jurisdictional error that may warrant interference of writ Court while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. The appeal, for the reason given above, is having no merit, hence dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******