JUDGMENT :

Mohammad Rafiq, J.

1. These matters have been laid before the division bench upon a reference made by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 22.02.2015 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15760/2015, on the following questions of law:

"(i) Whether the judgments rendered by two different Single Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Indu vs. Narsingh Das & Ors., 2013(5) WLC (Raj.) 615 and Prembai vs. Khurshid Bano & Ors., 2014(3) WLC (Raj.) 221 relying upon the case of Avinash Kumar Chauhan vs. Vijay Krishna Mishra, 2009 (2) SCC 532, lay a correct law without taking note of judgment rendered by a Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in Javer Chand & Ors. vs. Pukhraj Surana, AIR 1961 SC 1655.

(ii) Whether judgment rendered by another Single Bench of this Court in the case of Lrs of Deepchand vs. Mahaveer Chand & Anr., 2015 (2) WLN 106, and the view expressed by Full Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Balkrishna Bihari Lal vs. Board of Revenue M.P. and Others, AIR 1970 MP 74, has to prevail?

(iii) Whether on production of unstamped document, Court is duty bound to determine the stamp fee along with penalty, as per Section 35(1) of the Act or to impound the same under Section 33 of the Act and send the same to the Collector for determination of stamp duty and penalty in order to make the document admissible?"

2. Subsequently, another Single Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6437/2013 also vide order dated 6.2.2018 directed that that writ petition be also tagged and listed along with S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15760/2015 for adjudication before the Larger Bench.

3. Before proceeding to examine the matter on merits, a brief reference to the facts of the cases would be in order.

4. The first writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15760/2015, has been filed by petitioner-defendant Sanjeev Bhardwaj, in which the respondent-landlord Yogeshwar Swaroop Bhatnagar filed a petition before the Rent Tribunal for eviction of the petitioner-tenant Sanjeev Bharadwaj. He along with the petition submitted an affidavit along with eight documents on record. The respondent-landlord submitted an application before the Rent Tribunal stating that the petitioner provided only copies of five documents, whereas three documents, which are mentioned in the affidavits as Exhibits-A/4, A/7 and A/8, have not been provided to him. It was also contended in the application that petitioner in his affidavit exhibited agreement to sell as Ex. A3, which could not be exhibited as it was neither properly stamped, nor was it duly registered. Petitioner in reply to the aforesaid application stated that agreement to sell (Ex. A3) was merely produced in evidence for collateral purposes, under the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. The Rent Tribunal, Baran by its order dated 16.9.2015 accepted the application of the respondent-landlord and held that marking of the agreement to sell as Ex. A/3 was not proper and therefore ordered to cancel the same. It is this order which has been challenged by the petitioner-tenant.

5. The second writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6437/2013 has been filed by Prahlad, who purchased certain land through registered sale deed from one Kanhaiyalal, who was owner of 1/20th part of the property, which was yet not partitioned and suit for partition was pending. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for specific performance and for injunction, with the averments that land in dispute, measuring 5 bighas, comprising of khasra nos. 696, 698, 699, 702 and 703 in Village Jaisinghpura, Tehsil Chaksu, was in the khatedari of father of defendant-Kanhaiyalal. After demise of his father, his mother Mst. Gaura became the khatedar-tenant of the land. Out of the entire land measuring five bighas, land measuring one bigha and five biswas was sold to one Panchu son of Kalyan. A compromise took place between the parties before the Revenue Appellate Authority on 9.7.1997 in the terms t