The main legal point established is that a document creating substantial rights is compulsorily registrable, and the court emphasized the requirement to impound the document for adjudication of stamp duty.

1. Rule with the consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard.

2. The Writ Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been invoked against the order dated 1-4-2013 passed by the Learned Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Thane, by which order, the Trial Court has refused to exhibit the Development Agreement dated 2-3-2005 on the ground that the said agreement has been entered into without complying with the provisions of Section 36A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code in the matter of obtaining permission of the Competent Authority as the land covered by the said agreement is a tribal land and that the said document showing consideration of Rs.10 lacs but the same was executed on a stamp paper of Rs.10 from which it is crystal clear that the said document is not properly stamped.

3. The factual matrix involved in the above Petition in brief can be stated thus:

The Petitioner herein is the original Plaintiff whereas the Respondents are the original Defendants. The Suit filed by the Plaintiff being Special Civil Suit No.608 of 2010 has been filed claiming declaration that the said Development Agreement is legal, valid and subsisting. The said Development Agreement dated 2-3-2005 duly executed and notarised before notary public Mr. J. T. Sonavane at Noted/Registered Sr. No.4319/05 on 292005 as also the Power of Attorney dated 28-3-2007 executed by the Defendants in favour of the Plaintiff are legal, valid, subsisting and binding upon the Defendants. Further declaration sought by the Plaintiff was that the notice dated 1822010 issued by the Defendants and the Suit for declaration dated 18-2-2010 sworn and executed by the Defendant No.1 is illegal, void abinitio and not binding or operative against the Plaintiff. It appears that the Suit was at the stage of the recording of evidence. The said Development Agreement was tendered by the Plaintiff during examination-in-chief. The Plaintiff had in the said examination-in-chief sought to prove the contents of the said Development Agreement, during the course of the evidence the admissibility of the said document was raised before the Court. The Plaintiff produced a certified copy of the said document. The Trial Court declined to mark the said Development Agreement executed by and between the Plaintiff and the Respondent Nos.1 to 16 as an Exhibit. The refusal of the Trial Court is inter alia on the grounds which have been mentioned herein above namely that the said document has been executed in breach of Section 36A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, that the said document is not properly stamped. As indicated above, it is the said order dated 1-4-2013 which is impugned in the present Petition.

4. Heard the Learned Counsel appearing for the parties.

5. The Learned Counsel Mr. Godbole made the following submissions:

(i) that the said document was not compulsorily registrable under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act as by the said document there is no transfer of property.

(ii) The covenants of the said Development Agreement indicate a nature of right creating in favour of the Plaintiff which cannot be said to be created a right of ownership in favour of the Plaintiff.

(iii) That the Trial Court had erred in taking into consideration Article 5(ga) for the purpose of computing the stamp duty that was payable by loosing sight of the fact that the said provisions has been deleted.

(iv) that Section 36A does not provide for registration of the said document. The same only provides for permission to be sought from the Competent Authority in respect of purchase of tribal land and the same therefore cannot impinge upon the admissibility of the document.

6. Per contra Mr. Dani, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.1 to 16 made the following submissions :

(i) That Section 17(1)(b) does not apply only in cases where transfer is effected but comes into play as soon as a right is created in any party. Hence