Dinesh Mehta, J.

I.A. No. 2300 of 2017.

The petitioners have moved the present application, seeking dispensing with the service upon other unserved respondents, whose presence is inessential for the purpose of adjudicating the present issue.

2. For the reasons stated, the application is allowed. Needless to observe that the same shall be at the risk and peril of the petitioner.

3. Looking to narrow compass of the controversy and the fact that the proceedings in the Trial court are likely to be affected, the matter is taken up for consideration, today itself, at the request and with the consent of the counsels for the parties.

4. By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 04.04.2016 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rajsamand, (hereinafter referred to the 'Trial Court'), whereby an application dated 02.12.2013 filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 read with Section 35 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 has been rejected.

5. Avoiding the unwarranted, the facts relevant, for the purpose of adjuding the correctness of the order impugned are; that the petitioners/plaintiffs filed a suit for partition, seeking partition of the ancestral property by meets and bounds. The defendant No. 1 Madan Lal filed a written statement in response thereof and contended that pursuant to two sale deeds dated 27.05.1983 and 05.08.2000, the ownership alongwith the possession of a residential house (Gawadi), situated in 'HoliKa Than' has vested in him. In support of such assertion the said sale deeds had been placed by the said defendant, alongwith his written statement.

6. Confronted with such documents, the plaintiff moved the application dated 02.12.2013 raising objection about admissibility of the document, in view of the provisions contained in Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 and Section 35 of the Stamp Act, 1998. The petitioners/plaintiffs interalia contended that the sale deeds in question relate to immovable property, are unregistered and insufficiently stamped, for which they are inadmissible in evidence.

7. The defendant No.1 filed reply to the said application and contended that documents in question, namely sale deeds are being used for collateral purposes, and as such they are admissible in evidence.

8. Learned Trial court rejected the application aforesaid, vide its order dated 04.04.2016 interalia observing as under:-

^^gLrxr ekeys esa ;g ,d Lohd`r fLFkfr gS fd izfroknh la[;k 1 ftl nLrkost cSpkuukek fnuakfdr 27-05-1983 dks lk{; esa iznf'kZr djkuk pkgrk gS] og nLrkost iathd`r ,oa lE;d :i ls LVkafir ugha gSA fdUrq ;gka ;g mYys[k djuk lehphu gksxk fd mDr nLrkost cSpkuukek gLrxr ekeys ds i{kdkjksa ds e/; fu"ikfnr fd;k gqvk ugha gksdj oknh la[;k 1] 2 ds firk feJhyky }kjk iq:"kksRre ds i{k esa fy[kk gksuk mYysf[kr gS rFkk mDr cSpkuukek dh fy[kki<+h ds le; izfroknh la[;k 1 enuyky dk mifLFkr gksdj mlds Hkh bl fy[ki<+h ij gLrk{kj gksus dk dFku izfroknh la[;k 1 dh vkSj ls fd;k x;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa mDr nLrkost cSpkuukek] ftlesa ekeys ds i{kdkjksa ls lacaf/kr iwoZ lEifRr ds vUrj.k dh ?kVukvksa dk mYys[k fd;k x;k gS] ,slh fLFkfr esa mDr nLrkost cSpkuukek fnukafdr 27-05-1983 tks ;|fi iathd`r gksdj lE;d :i ls LVkafir ugha gksus ls nLrkost dh fof/kd xzkg~;rk ds laca/k esa ;g nLrkost lk{; esa vxzkg~; gS] fdUrq bl nLrkost esa oknxzLr lEifRr ls tqM+h iwoZorhZ ?kVuk ,oa vUrj.k ds mYys[k dk rRo lek;ksftr gksus ls oknxzLr lEifRr ds fgLls fo'ks"k ds iwoZorhZ vUrj.k ,oa vkf/kiR; ds Lo:i ij fopkj fd;s tkus dh gn rd mDr nLrkost dks ek= lhfer ,oa lgikf'oZd iz;kstu (Limited and Collateral Purpose) gsrq bl Lrj ij iznf'kZr fd;s tkus dh vuqefr fn;k tkuk fof/klEer izrhr gksrk gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa oknh@izkFkhZ dh vkSj ls tks U;kf;d n`"VkUr ekeys esa izLrqr fd;s x;s gS] og rF;kRed fHkUurk ds dkj.k gekjs fouez er esa ;gka pLik ugha gksrs gSA Qyr~ mijksDr foospukuqlkj oknh@izkFkhZ dh vkSj ls izLrqr mDr izkFkZuki= [kkfjt djrs gq, izfroknh dh vkSj ls izLrq