ORDER : 1. Briefly stated facts of the case are that Raju, son of Badra Ji (predecessor of the petitioners), filed a suit under Section 88 and 188 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1955’) before the court of Assistant Collector (SDO), Balotra seeking injunction and declaration of tenancy (khatedari) rights stating that his elder brother, Late Shri Mangla, (predecessor of the private respondents) was having ancestral agriculture land, bearing Khasra No.407 Rakba, ad-measuring 27 bighas and 5 biswas, situated at Village Jasol, District-Barmer. It was further stated that in the revenue records at the time of settlement, though entry in name of Late Shri Mangla was made but both brothers were having 1/2 share each in the suit property. It was thus prayed that declaration for necessary corrections be made in revenue record to the effect that Raju is having 1/2 share in the suit property. 2. In the written statement submitted on behalf of private respondents, it was stated that the suit property was self acquired property of Late Shri Mangla and pursuant thereto, revenue entries were made in his name. It was further stated that the land was in exclusive possession of Late Shri Mangla from the very beginning which is being cultivated and possessed by his legal heirs. 3. The court of Assistant Collector (SDO), Balotra on the basis of the pleadings framed necessary issues and after analysing evidence led by the parties, vide judgment and decree dated 30.04.2003 rejected the suit holding that the applicant-Raju has failed to prove that the suit property was inherited by Late Shri Mangla and therefore, he had 1/2 share in the property. 4. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2003, first appeal under Section 223 of the Act of 1955 was preferred by the petitioners before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Barmer (for short, ‘RAA, Barmer’). During the pendency of first appeal before RAA, Barmer, an application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 C.P.C. was submitted by the appellant-Raju with a prayer for taking additional document on record: Ikrarnama dated 19.05.1985/19.06.1985, executed by Late Shri Mangla, stating that the suit property is in joint possession of both the brothers which is being cultivated by them. It was further stated that due to bona fide error at the time of settlement, the entire land had been recorded in the name of Mangla however, since Raju is having 1/2 share in the property, he will be entitled to claim the same and his successors will not raise any objection, if such a demand is made. The RAA, Barmer taking into consideration the additional documentary evidence produced before it allowed the first appeal vide judgment and decree dated 21.01.2004, declaring appellant-Raju a tenant (Khatedar), having equal share in the suit property. It was further ordered that necessary entries in this regard may be made in revenue record. 5. The successors of Late Shri Mangla challenged judgment and decree dated 21.01.2004 passed by the RAA, Barmer by way of filing second appeal under Section 224 of the Act of 1955 before the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, Ajmer. In the second appeal filed before the Board of Revenue, the appellants contended that the so called Ikrarnama was never executed by Late Shri Mangla. The aforesaid document is a forged and a manufactured one. It was further contended that the Ikrarnama was neither exhibited nor proved by way of evidence before the RAA, Barmer whilst only photocopy of the same was filed, which is not even admissible in evidence. Lastly, it was urged that the document is unstamped and was compulsorily registrable document as per the provisions stipulated in Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1908’). 6. The Board of Revenue vide its judgment and decree dated 06.12.2017 allowed the second appeal and held that unstamped Ikrarnama dated 19.05.1985/19.06.1985 is compulsorily registrable and in the absence thereof, such document is inadmissible in evidence. The above judgment and decree dated 06.12.2017 passed by Board of Revenue, Ajmer wherein and whereby the judgment and decree dated 21.01.2004 passed by first appellate Court had been set aside while judgment and decree dated 30.04.2003 passed by Assistant Collector (SDO), Balotra had been restored, is assailed in this writ petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submitted that the second appellate Court committed an illegality in treating the Ikrarnama dated 19.05.1985/19.06.1985 as an agreement. Learned counsel submitted that the Ikrarnama dated 19.05.1985/19.06.1985 is neither a sale agreement nor a conveyance deed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submitted that the second appellate Court committed an illegality in treating the Ikrarnama dated 19.05.1985/19.06.1985 as an agreement. Learned counsel submitted that the Ikrarnama dated 19.05.1985/19.06.1985 is neither a sale agreement nor a conveyance deed. It is merely an acknowledgment by Late Shri Mangla that his brother Raju is co-tenant, having 1/2 share in the suit property. Learned counsel submitted that the Ikrarnama dated 19.05.1985/19.06.1985 is not a compulsorily registrable document because through the said document, neither property has been transferred nor possession has been delivered to party of the document. Learned counsel further submitted that the suit property was entered in the name of Late Shri Mangla in the revenue records at the time of settlement due to an error which has been admitted by him in the Ikrarnama dated 19.05.1985/19.06.1985, therefore, his legal heirs are precluded from denying the rights of Raju and his legal heirs. Lastly, it was submitted that the Rajasthan Stamp Act has come into force only in the year 1988, therefore, a document executed in the year 1985 would not be governed by the provisions of the said Act. On the strength of these submission, learned counsel implored the Court to accept the writ petition and set aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 06.12.2017 passed by the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, Ajmer. Reliance was placed on Korukonda Chalapathi Rao & Anr. vs. Korukonda Annapurna Sampath Kumar reported in (2021) 11 JT 260 . 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that Late Shri Mangla was the sole tenant of the suit property which was in exclusive possession of Late Shri Mangla and his legal heirs. The Ikrarnama dated 19.05.1985/19.06.1985 is a forged and manufactured document which was produced for the first time in the first appeal before the RAA, Barmer, without any explanation for not filing the same at the initial stage. Learned counsel submitted that since the aforesaid document was neither exhibited nor proved by evidence, they did not get any opportunity to rebut the same. Lastly, it was submitted that the Ikrarnama was an unregistered and an unstamped document, which was not admissible in the evidence. It was thus prayed that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed and judgment and decree dated 06.02.2017 passed by the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, Ajmer may be upheld. 9. Lastly, it was submitted that the Ikrarnama was an unregistered and an unstamped document, which was not admissible in the evidence. It was thus prayed that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed and judgment and decree dated 06.02.2017 passed by the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, Ajmer may be upheld. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. As per Section 140 of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, all entries made in the record of rights shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved. It is not the case of the petitioners that the entries of revenue records in the name of Late Shri Mangla were made fraudulently or surreptitiously. 11. In the case of Yellapu Uma Maheshwari & Anr. vs. Buddha Jagadheeswara Rao & Ors. reported in (2015) 16 SCC 787 , Hon’ble the Apex Court, held as under:- “It is well settled that the nomenclature given to the document is not decisive factor but the nature and substance of the transaction has to be determined with reference to the terms of the documents and that the admissibility of a document is entirely dependent upon the recitals contained in that document but not on the basis of the pleadings set up by the party who seeks to introduce the document in question.” 12. The Ikrarnama dated 19.05.1985/19.06.1985, said to have been executed by Late Shri Mangla reads as follows: ^^bdjkjukek eSa eaxyk oYn cknjth mez 60 o"kZ tkfr iqjksfgr lk- tlksy is'kk [ksrh bdjkj ukek esjs HkkbZ jktw oYn cknjth tkfr iqjksfgr lk- tlksy ds gd esa fy[k nsrk gw¡ fd xzke tlksy rglhy ipinjk esa [ksr [kljk uEcj 407 ¼pkj lkS lkr½ jdck 261 lrkbZl ch?kk ikap fcLok tks fd jktLo vfHkys[k esa esjs vdsys ds uke vk;k gqvk gSA ftldk yxku ge nksuksa HkkbZ vkt rd lkFk esa vnk djrs gSA ?kj esa cM+k gksus ls ;g [ksr esjs vdsys ds uke gks x;k gsA tcfd bl [ksr esa esjs HkkbZ jktw dk vk/kk cUV gksuk pkfg;s FkkA bl [ksr dks ge nksuksa HkkbZ vk/kk vk/kk vius cUV vuqlkj dkLr djrs gSA vr% vk/ks [ksr ij esjk dCtk o vk/ks cUV ij esjs HkkbZ jktw dk dCtk gSA bl [ksr [k- ua- 407 jdck 261 ds vk/k ds ekfyd vki jktw oYn cknjth rFkk vk/k dk ekfyd eSa Lo;a ¼eaxyk iq= Jh iq= Jh cknjth½ gw¡A bl [ksr ds lEcU/k esa vki vk/k dh ekax djksxs rks eSa dksbZ mtj o ,rjkt ugha d:axkA ;fn bl [ksr ds vk/kk cUV gsrq vki jtw iq= Jh cknjth jktLo okn djksxs rks eSa vkids gd c;ku d:axk vkSj vkids gd eSa lcwr is'k d:axkA bl [ksr ds vk/kk cUV ij ftl ij fd vki dk dCtk gS ml lEcU/k esa eSa o esjh vky vkSykn dksbZ fdLe dk mtj o ,rjkt ugha djsaxsA yksd vnkyr esa ekeyk is'k gksus ij eSa vkids gd esa c;ku d:axkA ;g [ksr vk/kk vkids uke djokus gsrq [kpkZ vkidk Lo;a dk yxsxkA ;g bdjkj ukek eSaus lksp le> dj jkth [kq'kh vdy gqf'k;kjh fcuk u'kk irk fd;s fcuk fdlh ncko ds eSaus esjs lxs HkkbZ jktw iq= Jh cknjth ds gd esa fy[k fn;k tks lgh gSA bZ'oj esjh enn djsaA oDr t:jr dke vkos rFkk lun jgsA bfr- ¼1½ lk[k ,d esa ujlhax iq= Jh ykyth tkrh jktiqjksfgr csjk tksaxjk eu.kkokl rsgipinjk ftyk ckM+esj us eaxyk iq= Jh cknjkth ds dgus ls vkt rk- 19@6@85 dks buds ?kj esa ¼2½ lk[k ,d nqxZflag iq= Jh tkerkth tkrh jktiqjksfgr fuoklh bUnzk.kk rsg- flok.kk ftyk ckM+esj okyks us eaxyk iq= Jh cknjkth ds dgus ls vkt 19@5@85 buds ?kj tlksy esa** 13. From the record of the case, it is clear that the Ikrarnama dated 19.05.1985/19.06.1985, claimed to have been executed by Late Shri Mangla relinquishing his rights in the suit property is disputed by his legal heirs. A photocopy of the said document was produced for the very first time in first appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Barmer along with an application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 C.P.C. The language/recitals contained in the Ikrarnama dated 19.05.1985/19.06.1985 clearly shows that it is not merely an acknowledgment or statement of facts. From the perusal of document, it reveals that through this document, rights have been relinquished in favour of Raju and his legal heirs, having an effect of Late Shri Mangla divesting his share in the suit property. 14. In Korukonda Chalapathi Rao & Anr. vs. Korukonda Annapurna Sampath Kumar reported in (2021) 11 JT 260 , Hon’ble the Apex Court while considering an instrument of partition (Khararunama) wherein the words used, intended to refer to the arrangements made between the parties and the document did not by itself purport to create, declare, assign, extinguish, limit right in the joint family properties, held that the document was not required to be registered and stamped. As noticed herein above, in the present case the genuineness of Ikrarnama has not only been disputed but the same by itself has an effect on the rights in the immovable property by way of creation, declaration, assignment, limiting or extinguishment, thereby making it a compulsorily registrable document by virtue of Section 17 of the Act of 1908. 15. Section 17 of The Registration Act, 1908 clearly provides that if any right in a property valued more than ?100 is to be created, declared, assigned, relinquished or extinguished, whether in present or in future is required to be compulsorily registered before the registering authority under the Act. Section 49 of the Act of 1908 in unambiguous terms states that no document required to be registered under Section 17 shall be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power, unless the same is registered. In view of language of Section 17 and 49 of the Act of 1908 and in the considered opinion of this Court, the Ikrarnama dated 19.05.1985/19.06.1985 is a compulsorily registrable document and if the same is not registered, becomes an inadmissible document. 16. In view of language of Section 17 and 49 of the Act of 1908 and in the considered opinion of this Court, the Ikrarnama dated 19.05.1985/19.06.1985 is a compulsorily registrable document and if the same is not registered, becomes an inadmissible document. 16. The argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners that Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 does not apply in the present case to the Ikrarnama which was executed in the year 1985 is to no avail as the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 had been adapted in Rajasthan under the Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) Act, 1952 which was prevalent during the said period. 17. In view of aforesaid discussion, the findings of fact, so recorded by the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, Ajmer vide judgment dated 06.12.2017 whereby judgment dated 30.04.2003 passed by the court of Assistant Collector (SDO), Balotra was restored does not suffer from any, illegality, perversity and infirmity warranting interference in this writ petition, which fails and is dismissed as such. 18. No order as to costs.