Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2099 (RAJ)

Vijay Kumar v. Urban Improvement Trust

2019-08-01

DINESH MEHTA

body2019
JUDGMENT Dinesh Mehta, J. - The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 27.4.2019 passed by the learned Addl. Senior Civil Judge & Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter referred to as the learned trial court), vide which the document filed by he petitioner namely, agreement to sell dated 23.12.2010 has been held to be inadmissible in evidence. 2. Briefly stated the pertinent facts are that the plaintiff -petitioner filed a suit for injunction against the respondent UIT, Sri Ganganagar, inter alia, asserting that he has purchased the contentious plot ad-measuring 23x54 feet by way of an agreement to sell dated 23.12.2010, executed by Jagdeep Singh. 3. In the suit proceedings, when the plaintiff - petitioner tendered the document in evidence, an objection was raised by the defendant - respondent with respect to its admissibility as the same was neither registered nor appropriately stamped. 4. The learned trial court allowed the objection of the defendant and held that the agreement to sell dated 23.12.2010 was inadmissible in evidence for want of registration, which was mandatory in terms of Section 17 and 49 of the Registration Act and so also, Section 39 of the Stamps Act. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned trial court was required to follow the mandate of Section 39 of the Stamp Act and ought to have sent it for determination of appropriate stamp duty. In support of his arguments, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of this court rendered in the case of Manak Lal Vs. Smt. Shobha Rankawat reported in 2016 WLC (Raj.) UC 36. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and considered the material available on record. 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is correct to the extent that it is the duty of the learned trial court to impound a document if it is insufficiently stamp and send it for determination of appropriate stamp duty. 8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has relied upon the said agreement to sell dated 23.12.2010, as a document of his title. It is settled proposition of law that any document of title requires registration as well as payment of appropriate stamp duty. 9. As per the provisions of Registration Act and Transfer of Property Act, a document in support of title is inadmissible in evidence sans registration. 10. It is settled proposition of law that any document of title requires registration as well as payment of appropriate stamp duty. 9. As per the provisions of Registration Act and Transfer of Property Act, a document in support of title is inadmissible in evidence sans registration. 10. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Manak Lal (supra) does not support the case of the petitioner, because in the said case, the suit was for specific performance of the agreement itself, therefore, in view of proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, the registration was not required. Such being the situation, this Court required the learned trial court to impound the document and send it for determination of appropriate duty and, thereafter, accept the document in evidence; whereas, in the present case, the agreement to sell dated 23.12.2010 has not been used for collateral purposes, and on the contrary, the same has been produced as a document of title. Hence, the judgment aforesaid does not help the petitioner, in any manner. 11. In this view of the matter, even if the petitioner's first contention is accepted and the document is sent for determination of appropriate stamp duty, in absence of the basic requirement of the registration, the document cannot be read in evidence. 12. There is no error in the order impugned, passed by the learned trial court. 13. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed. The stay application also stands disposed of. 14. The learned trial court is however, directed to impound the agreement to sell dated 23.12.2010 and send it to the concerned Collector (Stamp) for determination and recovery of the appropriate stamp duty.