Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 150 (RAJ)

Pitram v. Riddh Karan

2020-01-16

PRAKASH GUPTA

body2020
ORDER 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner defendant (hereinafter referred to as ?the defendant?) against the order dated 20.11.2019 passed by the Trial Court, whereby the application filed by the defendant under Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ?the Act of 1908) has been dismissed. 2. Facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as ?the plaintiff?) filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,26,000/-. On the summon having been received, the defendant put in appearance and filed the written statement. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant filed an application under Section 17 and 49 of the Act of 1908. The plaintiff filed reply to the said application. The Trial Court vide its order dated 20.11.2019 dismissed the application filed by the defendant under Sections 17 and 49 of the Act of 1908. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the defendant submitted that the agreement to sell dated 7.3.2015, which the plaintiff wanted to exhibit was not properly stamped, therefore, the same was inadmissible in evidence. He has further submitted that according to Section 17 and 49 of the Act of 1908 agreement to sell of any property valuing more than Rs. 100/- is required to be registered. In the purported agreement dated 7.3.2015, shop in question was valued at Rs. 20,00,000/-, for which Rs. 2,00,000/- were stated to be received. The said agreement being unregistered, was inadmissible in evidence. 4. Heard. Considered. 5. From the material evidence on record, it is evident that the suit was filed for recovery of money and not for specific performance of the agreement. Furthermore, Annexure-1 purported agreement evinces that it is not an agreement, but it is simply a writing with regard to receipt, which was not required to be registered. The said receipt can be exhibited for collateral purposes. 6. In this view of the matter, the Trial Court rightly rejected the defendant?s application under Sections 17 and 49 of the Act of 1908. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the Trial Court in its order dated 20.11.2019 while dismissing the defendant?s application. 7. There is no reason for this court to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Trial Court in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the Trial Court in its order dated 20.11.2019 while dismissing the defendant?s application. 7. There is no reason for this court to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Trial Court in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. The petition fails and the same is dismissed.