ORDER :

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-defendant (for short, 'the defendant') against the order dated 13.12.2019 passed by the Trial Court in Civil Suit No. 15/2013, whereby the application filed by the defendant for not exhibiting the agreements to sell, being unregistered and insufficiently stamped, has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that the respondent-plaintiff (for short, 'the plaintiff') filed a suit against the defendants for declaration and cancellation of the registered sale deed dated 17.10.2012. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff produced four agreements to sell. The defendant filed an application for not exhibiting them being insufficiently stamped and unregistered, but the Trial Court dismissed the same in an arbitrary manner. He further submits that insufficiently stamped and unregistered agreements to sell could not be used for any purpose. However, the learned trial court has utterly failed to consider this aspect of the matter and erred while giving a perverse finding that they have been produced as a linking evidence. On this count, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set-aside.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the agreements were executed on stamp duty, as prevalent at the relevant point of time, therefore, they were admissible in evidence. He further submits that the suit was filed on the basis of registered sale deed dated 17.2.2012 and agreements to sell dated 7.3.1992, 6.5.1992 and 25.5.1993 were produced as a linking evidence. For this reason, no interference with the impugned order is required by this Court.

4. Heard. Considered.

5. For ready reference, provisions of Sections 33 and 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short, 'the Act of 1899') and Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short, 'the Act of 1908') are reproduced as under:

Indian Stamp Act, 1899

"33. Examination and impounding of instruments – (1) Every person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, and every person in charge of a public office, except an officer of police, before whom any instrument, chargeable, in his opinion, with duty, is produced or comes in the performance of his functions, shall, if it appears to him that such instrument is not duly stamped, impound the same :

[Provided that noting contained in this sub-section shall be deemed to authorise the Collector to impound any instrument which has not been executed but is brought to him under section 31 for determining the duty with which the instrument is chargeable or any instrument which he is authorised to endorse under section 32.]

For that purpose every such person shall examine every instrument so chargeable and so produced or coming before him in order to ascertain whether it is stamped with a stamp of the value and description required by law in froce in India when such instrument was executed or first executed :

Provided that –

noting herein contained shall be deemed to require any Magistrate or Judge of a criminal Court to examine or impound, if he does not think fit so to do, any instrument coming before him in the course of any proceeding other than a proceeding under Chapter XII of Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898;

in the case of a Judge of a High Court, the duty of examining and impounding any instrument under this section may be delegated to such officer as the Court appoints in this behalf.

(3) for the purposes of this section, in cases of doubt, -

the State Government may determine what offices shall be deemed to be public offices; and

the State Government may determine who shall be deemed to be persons in charge of public officers."

"35. Instruments not duly stamped inadmissible in evidence, etc – No instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence or shall be acted upon, registered or auth