Back
2019 Supreme(Raj) 1763
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Ashok Kumar Gaur, J.
Nathu Lal - Appellant
Versus
Narendra Singh - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 20004 of 2019
Decided On : 02-12-2019
Shamsuddin Ansari, Advocate, Arun Sharma, Advocate
An unregistered document is only prima facie inadmissible and its admissibility is to be determined at the time of final decision.
Headnote:
TEMPORARY INJUNCTION - REVENUE SUIT - SECTION 212, 230 RAJASTHAN TENANCY ACT, 1955 - The court held that the Board of Revenue erred in setting aside the orders of the SDM Court and the Revenue Appellate Authority granting temporary injunction in a revenue suit, as the unregistered document relied upon by the plaintiff was only prima facie inadmissible and its admissibility was to be determined at the time of final decision.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed a revenue suit seeking declaration, permanent injunction, and correction of revenue entry. The SDM Court granted a temporary injunction to maintain the status quo of the land and revenue record. The defendant challenged this order before the Revenue Appellate Authority, which dismissed the appeal. The defendant then filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue, which allowed the petition and set aside the orders of the lower courts.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Board of Revenue erred in setting aside the orders of the SDM Court and the Revenue Appellate Authority, as the unregistered document relied upon by the plaintiff was only prima facie inadmissible and its admissibility was to be determined at the time of final decision. The court also directed the SDM Court to decide the main suit expeditiously within six months.
Issues: Whether the Board of Revenue erred in setting aside the orders of the SDM Court and the Revenue Appellate Authority granting temporary injunction in a revenue suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Board of Revenue erred in setting aside the orders of the SDM Court and the Revenue Appellate Authority, as the unregistered document relied upon by the plaintiff was only prima facie inadmissible and its admissibility was to be determined at the time of final decision. The court also directed the SDM Court to decide the main suit expeditiously within six months.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order of the Board of Revenue and directed the SDM Court to decide the main suit expeditiously within six months.
JUDGMENT
Ashok Kumar Gaur, J. - The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 12th July, 2019, whereby the Board of Revenue has accepted the revision petition filed under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short "the Act of 1955") against the order dated 25th November, 2011 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota.
2. The brief facts of the case are that a revenue suit was filed before the SDM Court, Lakheri, District Bundi by the petitioners for seeking declaration, permanent injunction and correction in the revenue entry. The petitioners also filed an application under Section 212 of the Act of 1955 for temporary injunction. The SDM Court, vide its order dated 23rd June, 2010, allowed the application of the petitioners of temporary injunction and directed to maintain the status quo of the land and revenue record in respect of the land situated in Khasra Nos.102, 103 and 109 measuring 2.54 hectare situated in Village Laban, Tehsil Indragarh till final disposal of the suit.
3. The order dated 23rd June, 2010 was assailed by the respondent Narendra Singh before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota. The Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota, vide order dated 25th November, 2011, dismissed the appeal of the respondent Narendra Singh and upheld the order passed by the SDM, Lakheri, Bundi dated 23rd June, 2010.
4. The respondent Narendra Singh, feeling aggrieved against the order dated 25th November, 2011, passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota, filed revision petition under Section 230 of the Act of 1955 before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue, vide impugned order dated 12th July, 2019 challenged in the present writ petition, has allowed the revision petition and has set aside the order dated 25th November, 2011 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota and the order dated 23rd June, 2010 passed by SDM, Lakheri, Bundi and the Board of Revenue has come to the conclusion that basis of entire suit of the petitioners is unregistered and unstamped document, said to be executed on 6th June, 1963.
5. Learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the Board of Revenue has committed illegality in allowing the revision petition in favour of the respondents.
6. Learned counsel submitted that the Board of Revenue could not have set aside the orders passed by the SDM Court, Lakheri and the Revenue Appellate Authority, as these orders do not suffer from legal infirmity.
7. Learned counsel further submitted that since the main suit is pending before the Authority SDM Court, Lakheri, after passing the order in favour of the petitioners on injunction in 2010, reversal of finding was not required in the facts of the present case.
8. Per contra, learned counsel Mr.Arun Sharma, appearing for the respondents, submitted that this Court need not to interfere in the order passed by the Board of Revenue, as the order does not suffer from any legal infirmity.
9. Learned counsel further submitted that the Board of Revenue has rightly taken view that no right can be conferred on the basis of unregistered and unstamped document, conferring title in favour of somebody.
10. Learned counsel further submitted that it is trite law that unregistered and unstamped document cannot be admitted in evidence and as such, no credence can be attached to such unregistered and unstamped document.
11. Learned counsel places reliance on the judgments passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of KB Saha and Sons Private Limited Vs. Development Consultant Limited, (2008) 8 SCC 564 and Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana and Anr. (SLP (C) No.13917/2009) decided on 11th October, 2011.
12. Learned counsel also places reliance on the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in SB Civil Writ Petition No.14361/2016 (Smt. Kamlesh Vs.Ranjeet Singh and Ors.) decided on 10th January, 2017.
13. On the strength of said judgments, learned coun
