Prakash Tatia, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Rajsamand dated 5th September, 2000 by which the trial Court held that the document in question Annexures 3 and 4 require neither stamp duty or registration and, therefore, the documents are admissible in evidence.

3. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the documents Annexures 3 and 4 are supplementary to each other constituting one document and otherwise also it is clear from the Annexures 3 and 4 that the original Khatedar tenant took the consideration of Rs. 80,000/-from plaintiff for the transfer of surface right of his agricultural land and thereby transferred his all rights in the land in question in favour of the plaintiff .

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner referred Sub-clauses (b) and (c) of Section 17(1) of the Indian Registration Act and Section 35 of the Stamp Act. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner by these documents, the transferor assigned his all (surface) rights in favour of the transferee after taking consideration of Rs. 80,000/-and, therefore, the documents require stamp du