The main legal point established is that in an application under the Registration Act, the court's jurisdiction is limited to considering the admissibility of the document for want of registration, and it should not give findings about its relevance or admissibility.

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Mehta, J. - By way of present writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 09.09.2016, whereby an application filed by the defendant under Section 17 and 49 of the Registration Act has been disposed of by the Civil judge, Pindwara (Sirohi).

2. The facts in nutshell, necessary for adjudication of the present case are that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, on the footing of a memorandum of settlement dated 22.03.2011. During the course of the proceedings, defendant filed an application dated 06.07.2016 under Section 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, inter alia, contending that the document in question, namely memorandum of partition, requires registration and in absence of requisite registration, the document cannot be taken on record and considered.

3. While deciding the said application vide order dated 09.09.2016, the Court below has categorically held that the memorandum of settlement or the agreement in question does not require registration, as the same is neither an instrument nor a memorandum of settlement, as the same was signed by only one person.

4. However, while deciding the said application, the Court below has gone ahead and observed as under :

In the light of observations and discussion made herein above, the proposed document is not required to be registered at all. The document is not relevant for any purpose and therefore it is found to be inadmissible in evidence.

5. Mr. PD Bohra learned counsel for the petitioner, challenging the order impugned, contended that the Court below has erred in making the observation to the effect that of the document in question is not relevant for any purpose and it is found to be inadmissible in evidence. He contended that once the Court has given a finding on the application filed by the defendant that the document in question does not require registration, it was not open for it to observe that the document is not relevant for any purpose and the same is inadmissible in evidence.

6. Per contra Mr. Mardia supported the order passed by the Court below, particularly in relation to its admissibility. To buttress his submissions, Mr. Mardia contended that the settlement in question has been signed by the father alone and not by all the parties concerned and hence it cannot be treated to be a valid document, in the eye of law.

7. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusal of the record, this Court unhesitantly holds that the Court below was required to pronounce upon the requirement of registration only pursuant to the application under Section 17 and 49 of the Registration Act 1908. Once having held that the document in question does not require registration, it was not open for the Court to comment upon it''s relevance or admissibility.

8. In an application under Section 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, the Court has to confine itself to the admissibility of the document for want of registration. It is not within the domain of the Court to give finding about its relevance or admissibility. A document''s relevance is not required to be given by the Court during the course of the proceedings, it should be given only at the time of final adjudication of the case. Besides this, the Court has given no reason for holding the memorandum, to be inadmissible in evidence. Relevance and admissibility are two different aspect, a document may be inadmissible, yet relevant and similarly admissible but irrelevant. A relevant document can be taken off the record,if it is inadmissible in evidence, but on the same line an admissible document cannot be taken off the record, if it is irrelevant.

9. Except for the registration, there was no quarrel about the admissibility of the document, nor the Court has given any reasoning therefore, the arguments advanced by Mr. Mardia that the agreement in question is not a valid agreement, having been signed by only one person, can also not be examined by this Court, at this