Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 261 (RAJ)

Dinesh Kumar Prajapat v. Vinod Pankaj

2023-01-23

MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

body2023
ORDER 1. Although, the matter comes up on an application no.1/2021 filed by the respondents seeing vacation of ex parte interim order; but, on the request of learned counsels for the respective parties, the matter is heard finally at this stage. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 25.03.2019 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Keshorai Pattan, District Bundi whereby, an application filed by the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 for not taking the subject document in evidence, has been allowed. 3. The relevant facts in brief are that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction and damages against the respondents/defendants. During the course of trial, the plaintiff wanted to exhibit an agreement to sell which was objected by the respondent no.1. Sustaining the objection, the learned trial Court has observed that insufficiently stamped and unregistered document is inadmissible in evidence even for collateral purpose. 4. Assailing the order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that unstamped/insufficiently stamped document as also unregistered document is admissible in evidence for collateral purpose and since, he wanted to exhibit the subject sale agreement to demonstrate demarcation of the subject property, it was admissible in evidence. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the order dated 25.03.2019 be quashed and set aside and the learned trial Court may be directed to permit him to exhibit the subject document. Learned counsel, in support of his submissions, relied upon following judgements of Hon'ble Apex Court of India:- (I) S. Kaladevi Vs. R. Somasundaram & Ors.: AIR 2010 Supreme Court 1654 & (II) Bondar Singh & Ors. Vs. Nihal Singh & Ors.: AIR 2003 Supreme Court 1905. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 would submit that insufficiently stamped document is not admissible in evidence for any purpose. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Heard. Considered. 7. It is trite law that insufficiently stamped document is not admissible in evidence even for collateral purpose. Since, the subject document is not only unregistered; but, insufficiently stamped also, it was not admissible in evidence. In view thereof, in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned trial Court did not err in passing the order dated 25.03.2019. 8. Their Lordships have, in case of Sita Ram Bhama Vs. Since, the subject document is not only unregistered; but, insufficiently stamped also, it was not admissible in evidence. In view thereof, in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned trial Court did not err in passing the order dated 25.03.2019. 8. Their Lordships have, in case of Sita Ram Bhama Vs. Ramvatar Bhama: (2018) 15 SCC 130 , while affirming findings of the learned trial Court holding the document in question to be inadmissible in evidence being inadequately stamped and unregistered, held that while, an unregistered document which is compulsorily registrable, can be looked into in evidence for collateral purpose, an unstamped/insufficiently stamped document cannot be accepted in evidence even for collateral purpose unless the same is subjected to payment of stamp duty and penalty. 9. Similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Yellapu Uma Maheshwari & Anr. Vs. Buddha Jagadheeswararao & Ors.: (2015) 16 SCC 787 . 10. The judgement relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in case of Bondar Singh & Ors. (supra) is of no help to him inasmuch in that case, the Hon'ble Court dealt with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 (for brevity, 'the Act of 1908') only and was not concerned with the provisions of the Stamp Act, 1899 (for brevity, 'the Act of 1899'). A co-ordinate Bench of this Court has, in case of Prembai Vs. Khurshid Bano & Ors.: 2014 (3) RLW 1874 (Raj.), after taking into consideration the provisions of Section 35 of the Act of 1899, proceeded to hold as under:- '7. A bare perusal of Section 35 of the Act of 1899 would reveal that the Parliament has used words 'for any purpose whatsoever'. Therefore, the purpose for which the document is sought to be admitted in evidence would not be a relevant factor. A bare perusal of Section 35 of the Act of 1899 would reveal that the Parliament has used words 'for any purpose whatsoever'. Therefore, the purpose for which the document is sought to be admitted in evidence would not be a relevant factor. The execution of a deed of conveyance in respect of the premises for which suit has been instituted for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent, indisputably, is an instrument executed and by reason of such an instrument not only the entire amount of consideration was paid, but possession of the property was also transferred and therefore, the submissions made by the learned counsel referring to the judgment in the case of Bondar Singh V. Nihal Singh: (2003) 4 SCC 161 , are not attracted for the reason that in the case of Bondar Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court only dealt with the interpretation of the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and was not concerned with the provisions of the Stamp Act of 1899. In the instant case at hand, on account of statutory interdiction, no transfer at all is permissible in the light of the law delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pandey Oraon V. Ram Chander Sahu : 1991 Supp (2) SCC 77 and Amrendra Pratap Singh Vs. Tej. Bahadur Prajapati & Ors : (2004) 10 SCC 65 .' 11. In case of Ramdev Dudi Vs. Kana Ram: AIR 2020 Rajasthan 25, this Court held as under:- '13. Learned counsel further submitted that irrespective of the fact that the document in question was neither registered nor appropriately stamped, the same can be used for collateral purpose. 14. In support of his arguments aforesaid, Mr. Jain relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Yashchandra (D) By Lrs. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. reported in AIR 2017 SC 4572 and Bondar Singh & Ors. Vs. Nihal Singh & Ors reported in (2003) 4 SCC 161 . ( AIR 2003 SC 1905 ) 18. A perusal of the judgments cited by learned counsel for the respondents show that they relate to the document(s), which were unregistered and the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration of Act, held such document to be admissible for collateral purposes. 19. ( AIR 2003 SC 1905 ) 18. A perusal of the judgments cited by learned counsel for the respondents show that they relate to the document(s), which were unregistered and the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration of Act, held such document to be admissible for collateral purposes. 19. There is no provision in the Stamp Act, which permits the document to be led in evidence, without payment of stamp duty for whatever purposes. 20. In considered opinion of this Court, sans payment of requisite stamp duty, a document cannot be used in evidence, even for collateral purpose. 12. Thus, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are of no help to him. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. 14. The pending application no.1/2021 also stands disposed of accordingly.