JUDGMENT : Dinesh Mehta, J. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has laid challenge to an order dated 18.08.2015 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dungargarh, District Bikaner, whereby petitioner's objection regarding admissibility of the document namely memorandum of settlement had been turned down by the learned Trial Court. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts apropos deciding the issue involved in the present case are that the plaintiff-respondent-Malchand filed a suit for eviction, after giving a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. With a view to assert the ownership of the subject property, he relied upon a memorandum of partition dated 29.06.2010. 3. During the course of evidence, no sooner did the plaintiff proceed to mark exhibit on the said memorandum dated 29.06.2010 then the defendant raised an objection about the admissibility of the document in question, as the same was neither appropriately stamped nor registered. The petitioner's such objection came to be decided by the learned Trial Court, vide its order dated 18.08.2015 which reads as under:- ^^;kn~nk'r caVokjk@ Partition Deed – EX-7 lg Lokfe;ksa ,oe~ lg nkf;Roksa ds e/; fu"ikfnr fd;k x;k nLrkost gSA ftlds ek/;e ls mUgksaus viuh ikfjokfjd lEifr dk foHkktu fd;k gSA bl nLrkost ds ek/;e ls fdlh ds i{k esa fdlh vf/kdkj ;k fgr dk l`tu ugha gksrk gSA vr% bl nLrkost dks iathd`r djkus dh dksbZ vko';drk ugha gSA ;g nLrkost bl nLrkost ij LVkEi M~;wVh dk Hkqxrku izkikIr :i ls fd;k x;k gSA vr% ;g lk{; esa xzkg~; gSaA vr% vkifRr vLohdkj dh tkrh gSA^^ 4. Assailing the above order, Mr. M.S. Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Court below has committed an error of law in repelling petitioner's objection regarding admissibility of the document and permitting the plaintiff to mark exhibit thereupon. He added that the Court below has erred in holding that by way of the document in question, no rights or interests have been created upon any of the parties and the same is therefore admissible in evidence. 5. Mr. He added that the Court below has erred in holding that by way of the document in question, no rights or interests have been created upon any of the parties and the same is therefore admissible in evidence. 5. Mr. Purohit read the recital of the said document dated 29.06.2010 and submitted that though the title of the document has been mentioned as ^^;kn~nk'r caVokjk^^ (Partition deed) and even in the last paragraph the expression ^^;kn~nk'r caVokjk^^ has been used, but a bare reading thereof reveals that it had created right, interest and title upon the parties involved therein. Learned counsel contended that the document in question namely partition deed, is clearly covered under the definition of instrument of partition given under Section 2 (XX) of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998, making it exigible to stamp duty. In support of his argument, Mr. Purohit relied upon a judgment dated 04.12.2014 rendered in a case of Mr. Mahendra Singh v. Dhirendra Singh & Ors (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3643/2014) and contended that the contentious document also requires registration as well as payment of appropriate stamp duty and in absence thereof, it is inadmissible in evidence. 6. Per contra Mr. S.L. Jain, learned counsel for the respondent supporting the order passed by the Court contended that the document in question is a memorandum of settlement/memorandum of partition, reducing in writing a partition, which had taken place at a prior point of time. Mr. Jain relied upon a Judgment of this Court reported in 1976 WLN (UC) Page 265 (Kewalchand & Ors v. Smt. Phoolabai & Ors.); (1996) 9 SCC 370 (Bakhtawar Singh v. Gurdev Singh & Anr.); 2012 (8) SCC 584 (State of A.P. & Ors. v. D. Raghukul Pershad (D) By LRS & Ors.) and 1996 (6) SCC 373 (S.K. Sattar S.K. Mohd. Choudhary v. Gundappa Amabadas Bukate) to buttress his submission that the document in question is admissible in evidence. His other limb of argument has been that looking to the nature of the suit, viz, suit for eviction of the tenant, the title of the property is not in question and the plaintiff has sought to use it simply for collateral purposes of showing his possession and ownership. With the help of above judgments, he tried to canvass that the memorandum of partition can be admitted in evidence. 7. With the help of above judgments, he tried to canvass that the memorandum of partition can be admitted in evidence. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the material available on record; including the contentious document dated 29.06.2010. 8. A bare look at the document shows that though it has been labeled as ^^;kn~nk'r caVokjk^^ /Partition Deed' While using similar expression in its concluding part also, but the recital therein does not give any indication about the event of the partition having been taken place at an earlier point of time, nor does it show that the parties involved therein were in possession of the respective share of the property and have been enjoying the possession/ownership. On the contrary the narration in the document is clearly suggestive of the factum of the partition taking place on the date of its execution viz. 29.06.2010. It would be appropriate to reproduce relevant part of the document which is being done hereunder:- tks fd ge i{kdkj LoxhZ; eaxrey iq= LoxhZ; Qwljkt nwxM+ dh iRuh] iq= o iq=h ;kfu muds dkuwuh mRrjkf/kdkjh gSA dLck JhMwaxjx<+ esa ge i{kdkjksa dh ,dek= iSr`d vpy lEifr vHkh rd vfoHkkftr pyh vk jgh gSA ftldk C;kSjk bl izdkj gS% dLck JhMwaxjx< ds eksgYyk dkyw ckl esa ge i{kdkjksa dk ,d edku ftlesa jkLrk vke dh rjQ nqdkusa Hkh gS rknknh 848111011 njxt Hkwfe esa vofLFkr gSaA ftldk /kksjh iV~k rknknh 7308 njxt Hkwfe dk gekjs iwoZtksa xksejke] HkS:nku o jkorey nwxM+ ds uke dk fefr ikSg cnh 11 lEor~ 1939 dk gSA gekjs ifr eaxrey nwxM+ LoxhZ; jkorey nwxM+ ds iksrs FksA dkykarj esa mDr iV~k dh nf{k.kh iwohZ 848111011 njxt Hkwfe eaxreyth nwxM+ dh ikarh esa jgh Fkh vkSj mUgksusa fnukad 20-3-1979 dks fuekZ.k Lohd`fr izkIr djds ml ij fuekZ.k djok;k FkkA lhek,a o {ks=Qy lEiw.kZ lEifr bl izdkj gS % mRrj nf{k.k iwoZ if'pe njxt edku lksgu jkLrk jkLrk edku cknjey nks QqV yky gky vke vke gky fejtkey ds xt fyf[kehpan cksFkjk ls nwxM+ 59^ 59^ 57-625 57-625 849-96 ^^pwafd ge i{kdkj vyx vyx jg jgs gSA gekjs fgUnw la;qDr ifjokj dk fo?kVu gks pqdk gSA eaxreyth dh lHkh iqf=;ksa dh 'kknh dh tl pqdh gSA lEifr ds leqfpr mi;ksx dh n`f"V ls vkSj vkoklh; O;OkLFkk dh n`f"V ls ge i{kdkjksa us la;qDr ifjokj dh o iSr`d vfYyf[kr lEifr dk ,der ls fuEukuqlkj foHkktu fd;k gSA^^ 9. A bare look at the tenor of the document unravels that the partition has been given effect on 29.06.2010 at the time of execution of the document. As such the same requires registration as well as payment of appropriate stamp duty. 10. A simple reading of the definition of 'instrument of partition', as stipulated in Section 2 (XX) of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 particular clause (iii) thereof reveals that it takes into its fold all types of documents signed by the co-owners in any manner, whether it records an immediate partition or a partition having taken place at prior point of time. In light of the express provision contained in the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998, the judgments relied upon by Mr. Jain are of hardly any help to him. 11. Hence, in considered view of this Court, stamp duty is payable as the document in question clearly falls within ambit of Clause (XX) of Section 2 of the Stamp Act, 1998. 12. A perusal of Section 39 of Stamp Act, 1998 leaves no room of ambiguity that the document which is not sufficiently stamped cannot be admitted in evidence. 13. Equally essential is the requirement of registration of the subject document, as mandated vide Section 17(1) (b) of the Registration Act, 1908. A bare look at the provision contained in Section 17 (1) (b) of the Registration Act leaves no scope for ambiguity that all non testamentary instruments which create or purports to create or extinguish any right title or interest in an immovable property whether past, present or future are required to be registered. 14. In view of the above, unequivocal position of law, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the document dated 29.06.2010, purported memorandum of partition is inadmissible in evidence, sans registration and payment of applicable stamp duty. 15. However, this Court finds some substance in the argument of Mr. S.L. Jain that the document in question can still be used for collateral purposes, as the plaintiff is not claiming any right of ownership in the present case, as the suit in question is only a suit for eviction, wherein title of the plaintiff is not of much relevance. As such it is held that for the purposes of present suit, the document in question can be used for collateral purposes in light of the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. As such it is held that for the purposes of present suit, the document in question can be used for collateral purposes in light of the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. But such collateral purpose has to be confined to showing or proving the factum of possession only. 16. Coming to the judgments relied upon by Mr. Jain, it is worth noticing that all the judgments cited by him relate to requirement of registration, wherein the Courts have held that the document of partition can be used even without registration, for collateral purposes, but none of them hold that even in absence of appropriate stamp duty the same can be admitted in evidence. Needless to say that all these judgments ipso facto cannot be made applicable, when the document's evidentiary capabilities is questioned on account of non payment of stamp duty. 17. On the other hand the judgment cited by Mr. Purohit is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case wherein this Court has affirmed an order of the Trial Court, whereby such partition deed had been refused to be admitted in evidence for want of payment of appropriate stamp duty and lack of registration. 18. In some what similar circumstance, this Court has taken a view that an unregistered and unstamped document creating right, interest and title in the property, is not admissible in evidence, except for collateral purpose of proving possession. Though the document therein was an alleged 'Sale Deed', but the principles relied and ruled therein are equally applicable in the present case. A gainful reference of the said judgment dated 26.07.2017 rendered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7815/2016 "Om prakash v. Madan Lal" can be made here. As a result of the above analysis, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and hence allowed. The order impugned dated 18.08.2015 is quashed and set aside. 19. At this juncture, Mr. S.L. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the plaintiff would offer to pay appropriate stamp duty on the document in question, for which the learned Trial Court be directed to impound and remit the same to the Collector (Stamps), for determination of appropriate stamp duty. 20. 19. At this juncture, Mr. S.L. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the plaintiff would offer to pay appropriate stamp duty on the document in question, for which the learned Trial Court be directed to impound and remit the same to the Collector (Stamps), for determination of appropriate stamp duty. 20. In view of above, the learned Trial Court is directed to impound the original document dated 29.06.2010 and remit the same for determination of appropriate stamp duty, to the concerned Collector (Stamps). After payment of the applicable stamp duty, the document would be admissible in evidence, albeit to the limited extent of evincing possession. 21. Since the matter is pending consideration before the learned Trial Court for about five years, it is expected from it to proceed in the matter as expeditiously as possible.