Unregistered and insufficiently stamped documents are inadmissible for any legal purpose, including temporary injunctions, preventing plaintiffs from establishing claims based on such documents.

JUDGMENT :

S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, heard finally by consent of parties.

2. The petitioner/defendant takes exception to order dated 10.05.2023, passed by learned District Judge, Beed in Misc. Civil Appeal No.91 of 2022, thereby upholding order dated 21.09.2022 passed by learned Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Beed below Exhibit-5, in Special Civil Suit No.93 of 2022, thereby granting temporary injunction in favour of respondent/plaintiff.

3. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as under.

4. Petitioner/original defendant is owner of suit property. He agreed to sell suit land to respondent/plaintiff for consideration of Rs.92,50,000/- (Rs. Ninety Two Lac Fifty Thousand only). Accordingly, executed tabe-isar-pavti/Notarised Agreement. An earnest money of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid. After execution of agreement, plaintiff paid further installment on 08.07.2020 and 11.11.2020. Eventually, defendant received total earnest money of Rs.22,00,000/- lakh (Rs. Twenty Two Lac only). The sum and substance of agreement is that plaintiff was permitted to develop land and create saleable plots over suit property and after selling them, to pay consideration to defendant in installments within time limit. Defendant was to execute bharna-pavtis time to time and also execute documents in favour of prospective purchasers of plots. Defendant was under obligation to clear-off encumbrances upon suit plots and finally execute sale deed of balance land by 25.06.2022 after receiving total consideration.

5. Plaintiff contends that he was ready to pay balance consideration amount and requested defendant to clear-off loans; however, he failed to do so and execute sale deed.

6. Defendant took stand that he was intending to develop property and convert in saleable plots; therefore, agreement was executed. However, plaintiff failed to develop property or sell out plots within specified time limit. Pertinently defendant admitted receipt of amount of Rs.22,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lakh Only).

7. Learned Trial Court, after considering rival contentions, allowed application Exhibit-5 and temporarily injuncted defendant from alienating suit property by any mode or disturbing possession of plaintiff till disposal of suit, except by following due process established by law. The aforesaid order was subjected to challenge before learned District Judge in Misc. Civil Appeal No.91 of 2022, who affirmed order and dismissed appeal.

8. Heard learned Advocates appearing for respective parties.

9. Mr. J.M. Murkute, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner submits that tabe-isar-pavti dated 26.06.2020 can never be termed as agreement to sell in strict sense. In fact, it was agreement for development of property and plaintiff was expected to carve out plots and facilitate sale to prospective purchasers within specified time limit and pay agreed amount to defendant.

10. Mr. Murkute Points out that document dated 26.06.2020 is neither registered nor it is stamped, but simply notarized on bond paper of Rs.100/-. He would further point out that suit land was never put into possession of defendant, although he was permitted to take necessary steps to carve out plotting and develop property for sale. However, Courts below relied upon contents of inadmissible and unregistered document, granted temporary injunction against defendant.

11. In support of his contentions, he relies upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Avinash Kumar Chauhan Vs. Vijay Krishna Mishra , 2009 AIR SCW 979 . According to Mr. Murkute, in absence of impounding document, it could not have been considered even for collateral pu